Illinois Board of Elections declares Cruz a natural-born citizen

[pkskyali]

Of course Ted Cruz was born a U.S. citizen. That is a fact that has never been in dispute. ...

That still doesn't make any sense. How could he be a US citizen? He wasn't even born in the US, he was born in Canada. However you might qualify him as a US citizen outside of "dual citizenship" qualifies him more as Canadian. That what he is. His claims to US citizenship are fraudulent, or corrupt. Choose one.

[MW]

That still doesn't make any sense. How could he be a US citizen? He wasn't even born in the US, he was born in Canada. However you might qualify him as a US citizen outside of "dual citizenship" qualifies him more as Canadian. That what he is. His claims to US citizenship are fraudulent, or corrupt. Choose one.

He's a U.S. citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen and met all the requirement required by law to give birth to a U.S. citizen in another country.

Excerpt:

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.

This is not a particularly controversial interpretation of Article II, section 1. Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ “ in the Harvard Law Review Forum:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. . .

.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-born-citizen/

[pkskyali]

He's a U.S. citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen and met all the requirement required by law to give birth to a U.S. citizen in another country. ...

You are just mindlessly repeating yourself and ignoring the facts. And you are not alone. This how corrupted our country has become and especially US citizenship. Again, any argument you make for his US citizenship makes him a Canadian, not a US citizen.

Ted Cruz is not a US citizen. The Obamination is not a US citizen for the same reasons. And additionally, Ted Cruz was not born in the US. Even if you could somehow legally argue he was a US citizen, it wouldn't matter. The constitution is very clear. You must be actually born in the US to be eligible for the presidency. It is not one count that makes him inelegible, it is two counts.

Even if Cruz had legally entered the country and legally applied for citizenship, he would not be eligible for the presidency.

A vote for Cruz is a vote for Obama and everything he represents. Cruz should be removed from the nomination. And he should be thrown out of any government position in the US along with anyone else falsely claiming to be a US citizen who is sitting in any government position in the US.

[MW]

You are just mindlessly repeating yourself and ignoring the facts. And you are not alone. This how corrupted our country has become and especially US citizenship. Again, any argument you make for his US citizenship makes him a Canadian, not a US citizen.

Ted Cruz is not a US citizen. The Obamination is not a US citizen for the same reasons. And additionally, Ted Cruz was not born in the US. Even if you could somehow legally argue he was a US citizen, it wouldn't matter. The constitution is very clear. You must be actually born in the US to be eligible for the presidency. It is not one count that makes him inelegible, it is two counts.

Even if Cruz had legally entered the country and legally applied for citizenship, he would not be eligible for the presidency.

A vote for Cruz is a vote for Obama and everything he represents. Cruz should be removed from the nomination. And he should be thrown out of any government position in the US along with anyone else falsely claiming to be a US citizen who is sitting in any government position in the US.

You're not even making any sense. I've made it as clear as I can for you. Let's forget the "natural born citizen" thing for a minute because you aren't arguing that, you're arguing that Ted Cruz is not a U.S. citizen. As for that, you are actually the only one I've ever heard make that argument because he is a U.S. citizen and recognized as such by our own laws.

Excerpt:

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

So, Section 301(g) of the INA very clearly shows that Ted Cruz was born a U.S. citizen. It's also well known that Cruz's mother met the requirements. The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952 before Ted Cruz's birth. Yes, Ted Cruz was born a U.S. citizen. If you want to call me mindless again and ignore the proof I've provided, that's on you.

[pkskyali]

Sorry, but that still doesn't make any sense. And you still mindlessly ignore the dual citizenship claimed by Cruz for Cruz's -- and your -- convenience and nothing else.

It remains. Nothing less than two US parents make a US citizen. Anything else perverts citizenship itself and any argument to the contrary is corrupt.

Nobody who values their own citizenship will vote for Cruz for anything. A vote for Cruz is a vote for Obama.

[JohnDoe2]

Don't Look Now, but It's Not Just Ted Cruz With an Eligibility Problem

[JohnDoe2]

HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
MAR 11, 2015
128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161

We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations.

We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”^1×1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.^2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.Show More

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law^3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.^4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.^5×5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898). These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposeswhatsoever.”^6×6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.

The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’sCommentaries,^7×7. See 1 William Blackstone,Commentaries *354–63. a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790^8×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). provided that “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 . . . .”^9×9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted). The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.^10×10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).Show More

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.^11×11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a naturalborn Citizen.^12×12. Letter from John Jay to George Washington (July 25, 1787), in 3 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).Show More

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”^13×13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).Show More

The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.^14×14. See Michael Nelson,Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).Show More

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.^15×15. See Monica Langley,Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM),http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...94001552603692.Show More

Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.^16×16. See Michael Dobbs,John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM),http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac...irthplace.html[http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].Show More

Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.^17×17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter,Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).Show More

Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”^18×18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008). And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.

Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,^19×19. See Bart Barnes,Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...oldwater30.htm[http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].Show More and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.^20×20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure,N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995,http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/ob...op-figure.html.Show More

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.

---

* Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
** Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University; Partner, Bancroft PLLC.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

[MW]

Sorry, but that still doesn't make any sense. And you still mindlessly ignore the dual citizenship claimed by Cruz for Cruz's -- and your -- convenience and nothing else.

It remains. Nothing less than two US parents make a US citizen. Anything else perverts citizenship itself and any argument to the contrary is corrupt.

Nobody who values their own citizenship will vote for Cruz for anything. A vote for Cruz is a vote for Obama.

This isn't an argument to the contrary or anything else, it's a fact ... nothing corrupt about it ... it's the law. If facts confuse you, I'm sorry. If you have a problem with the INA, take it up with your congressional representatives.

A vote for Cruz is definitely not a vote for Obama ..... they're miles apart. IMO, comparing Cruz to Obama is absolutely ludicrous.

The dual citizenship issue is no longer relevant because it has been legally renounced.

[MW]

Excerpt:

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”^1×1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.^2×2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.

Thank you, JohnDoe2.

[joe s]

Is Ted Cruz a 'Natural Born' Citizen? Founding FathersWouldn't Think So
Robert M. Casale, TheConnecticut Law Tribune
February 3, 2016
Republican presidentialcandidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during a caucus night rally, Monday,Feb. 1, 2016, in Des Moines, Iowa. Cruz sealed a victory in the Republican Iowacaucuses, winning on the strength of his relentless campaigning and supportfrom his party's diehard conservatives. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) CharlieNeibergall
In 2016, there is nocompelling reason why a person born of American parents should not satisfy the'natural born' requirement of Article II, Section I, but that is decidedly nothow the framers of the Constitution understood that qualification.
The irony is palpable: Aformer Supreme Court clerk with an ultraconservative judicial philosophy whorails against "activist" judges aspires to be president but runsheadlong into a constitutional provision that disqualifies him unless it isgiven an "activist" interpretation. Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz'spresidential eligibility raises legitimate questions of constitutionalinterpretation which bear no semblance to the manufactured "birther"controversies involving Barack Obama and John McCain.
Obama was born in Hawaii toa U.S. citizen, and McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone on a military baseto parents who were both U.S. citizens. There is no question that both enjoybirthright citizenship. Cruz presents an entirely different question, one that"originalists" like Cruz, who profess that the Constitution should beconstrued in accordance with its original public meaning, will likely not seein his favor.
The Constitution providestwo main qualifications to be president: age and citizenship. In addition tobeing at least 35 years of age, a president must be a "natural borncitizen." Specifically, Article II, Section I of the Constitution providesthat "n[o] person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of UnitedStates at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible tothe office of President." Cruz was born in Canada; his mother was a U.S.citizen. Until he recently renounced his Canadian citizenship, he held dualcitizenship. So is Cruz a "natural born citizen" as that phrase wasunderstood in 1789, the year the Constitution was adopted?

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/home/id=1202748773860
Personally, I believe thatthis qualification should be construed to satisfy the citizenship requirementfor Cruz, but I believe that the Constitution is a living document. I do notprofess that constitutional meaning is fixed in time or that judges who ascribea contemporary meaning to constitutional terms violate their oaths. In 2016,there is no compelling reason why a person born of American parents should notsatisfy the "natural born" requirement of Article II, Section I, butthat is decidedly not how the framers of the Constitution understood thatqualification.
As the phrase wasunderstood in the 18th century, anyone born on American soil whose parents wereU.S. citizens was a "natural born" citizen. Anyone whose citizenshipwas acquired in any other fashion, such as by naturalization, was not. It wasjust that simple.
The reason for limiting thepresidency to "natural born" citizens was to preclude foreigninfluence in the highest office of the land in the brand-new country. GivenCanada's political affiliation with the monarchy of Great Britain, with QueenElizabeth II as the personification of the Canadian state, the Founding Fatherswould never have countenanced an individual who once held Canadian citizenshipbecoming U.S. president.
Indeed, what is thelikelihood that those who wrote the Constitution would require all electedofficeholders to be "citizens," but further require the president tobe a "natural born citizen," if the two conceptions of citizenshipwere the same? The Supreme Court has never decided this question but it haslong indicated that these terms are not co-extensive. In Minor v. Happersett,in 1875, the court explained that a "natural born" citizen is a childborn in a country to parents who were citizens at the time of the child'sbirth. The court further explained this formulation in 1898's United Statesv. Wong Kim Ark, stating: "A person born out of thejurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by beingnaturalized, either by treaty … or by authority of Congress … as in theenactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens."
This likely explains thecourt's reference in the 1914 case of Luria v. United States that under"our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on equal footing with thenative citizen in all respects save the eligibility to the presidency."This was apparently not an off-the-cuff comment because the court repeated itin 1944 in Baumgartner v. United States and again in 1964 in Schneiderv. Rusk. And then in Rogers v. Bellei in 1971, the court found thata person who acquires U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born outside of theUnited States to parents, one of whom is an American citizen—precisely Cruz'ssituation—is considered a naturalized citizen, not a native-born citizen.
Since the Constitutionempowers Congress to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,"Cruz's eligibility to be president must first satisfy the statutory definitionof "at birth" citizenship before the constitutional question evencomes into play. The first statute to address this question, The NaturalizationAct of 1790, classified children born abroad to citizens of the United Statesas natural-born citizens, but that statute seemed to require that both parentsbe U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth for the child to beconsidered a natural-born citizen. Regardless, that statute was repealed andreplaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795. This law stated that a child bornoutside of the U.S. shall be considered a "citizen," not a"natural-born citizen" as the earlier law provided. Maybe Congresshad second thoughts about watering down the notion of natural-born citizens.
Later formulations,specifically 18 U.S.C. §1401(d), define citizens "at birth" withreference to a child's parents' status and residence in the U.S. before thechild's birth. In Cruz's case, this would involve an inquiry into such mattersas how long his mother lived in Canada before his birth and, moresignificantly, the date his father applied for Canadian citizenship and whetherhe renounced his status as a U.S. national (a likely event) when he applied forCanadian citizenship. The answers to these questions are necessary to thedetermination of whether Cruz can be statutorily considered an "at birth"citizen under §1401. If the facts do not satisfy the statutory requirements for"at birth" citizenship, the constitutional question may be moot. Ifthe facts satisfy the statute, the question remains as to whether the statuteunconstitutionally contravenes the Constitution's presidential eligibilityrequirements. So, this matter is not quite as cut and dried as some politicalcommentators, and Cruz himself, suggest.
The process ofconstitutional adjudication is unique to the United States. Neither the text ofthe Constitution nor the writings of the Founding Fathers provide any guidanceas to how constitutional language should be understood. As a result, along-running debate has ensued over the proper approach to constitutionalinterpretation. There are those, like Cruz, who maintain that constitutionaltext should be interpreted strictly in accordance with its original meaning,and there are those (like me) who maintain that constitutional interpretationshould evolve with the changing nature of society.
Ironically, viewed through the lens of Cruz's own"originalist" ideology, which denies constitutional protection formany contemporary rights because the Constitution is silent about them, he maybe constitutionally ineligible to be president because of a restriction theConstitution is not silent about: the requirement that the U.S. president be anatural-born citizen.