Thread: Ted Cruz on Immigration: I’ll Appoint Trump to Build the Wall When I’m Elected

by DAN RIEHL
2 Dec 2015
Washington, DC
341 comments

Senator and Presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) insists that if elected, he’ll secure America’s southern border by building a wall. But not him personally.

Cruz tells the Kuhner Report that, after he’s elected President, he’d appoint mogul and current primary competitor Donald Trump to build the wall.

“Would a President Cruz build a wall along the entire Southern border and if you were President, would you appoint Donald Trump to build that wall?” asked Kuhner. “Absolutely yes on both fronts,” responded Cruz.

Cruz was also asked about the flurry of recent attacks from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and others now that he is rising swiftly in the polls. A spirited Cruz said, “The fact that they’re shooting at you is a real strong sign. If they’re not shooting at you, you’re not doing much of anything…. The Republican establishment is in a panic and they’re in a panic because Conservatives are uniting behind our campaign.”

The first portion of the interview focused on foreign policy, most notably radical Islam, culminating with a pledge by Cruz to defeat radical Islam if elected President.

Segueing to domestic issues, said Cruz, “we need a President who stands with the working men and women, whether it is against amnesty; whether it is for sovereignty; whether it is against Obama Trade – and that is exactly where I am.”

Cruz also cited his 11 page immigration plan (available here). Calling it a “serious plan,” he pointed out that, in part, it calls for building a wall, tripling border security, ending sanctuary cities, ending Welfare for people here illegally, ending catch and release, and finally, “we will deport criminal illegal aliens.”

As Breitbart News reported yesterday, the immigration issue has become key in the head-to-head match up between Senators Cruz and Rubio, as many see a tightening race putting the two men on a collision course. By attacking Cruz, Rubio is trying to turn a significant weakness into something of a strength. So far, it doesn’t seem to be working across the base.

What’s perhaps most interesting about this whole scenario is the fact that Rubio—of all people in the 2016 GOP field probably the most troubled on immigration after his role working with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the Gang of Eight amnesty bill last Congress—is the one launching these attacks on Cruz.

The Cruz interview on today’s Kuhner Report can be heard below.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ll-im-elected/

Cruz also cited his 11 page immigration plan (available here). Calling it a “serious plan,” he pointed out that, in part, it calls for building a wall, tripling border security, ending sanctuary cities, ending Welfare for people here illegally, ending catch and release, and finally, “we will deport criminal illegal aliens.”

Oh my goodness, that sounds so much like Trump's plan, except that Trump will not limit deportation to criminal illegal aliens. Trump's plan is to deport all illegal aliens, try and "trump" that one, Ted Cruz. And you didn't mention Trump's other very important plan which is to pause all immigration, put Americans back to work, and stop importing labor and welfare signer uppers who hurt our country and harm our citizens.

Sorry, Ted. You're late in the game, you're not "all in", you're huffing and puffing trying to catch up to a real leader who thought it first, 35 years ago, who said it first within a day or two of his announcement to run for President of the United States, and who by all who know him and know of him, will actually do it.

Ted, you're probably a really nice guy, but I can not imagine even 4 years of listening to the way you speak. It's really just plain awful. It's so canned, so rehearsed, so practiced, and so scripted, that we know it's not real. You're real, I've no doubt about that, and you're a fighter trying to become President, but you're not a real leader. You don't have an original plan, you've not had an original thought, you are a package of what you believe or have convinced yourself will make you President. You're far right, you've no respect for women's rights, you're pretty good on the Constitution, but I've not heard you challenging the misuse of the 14th Amendment on "anchor babies". I've not heard you saying you're going to deport all illegal aliens in accordance with law. I've not heard you supporting state and local law enforcement authority to enforce US immigration law. I've not heard you on much.

And the reason for that is .... you've not done much outside of the legal field with the US Supreme Court. You've only been a US Senator for 3 years and you've spent 1 year of that running for President.

You're a great lawyer in Supreme Court arguments. That's really it. You've never built anything, you've never run a business, you've never balanced a public or private budget, you've never managed anything other than Supreme Court briefs. You've never worked a regular job. You've never had to bring home the bacon through private enterprise. This is a huge problem for you.

You shouldn't have been so eager for your own elevation. You have a job to do in the US Senate that you were elected to do, yet you've spent the better part of it preparing for your next elevation.

And then we get to the qualifications to be President.

One of which is natural born citizen.

Someone born in Canada to a Cuban father, is not eligible to hold this office of President under the US Constitution. You know that, I know that, yet you throw your name in the hat anyway. How much respect can you really hold for the US Constitution when you run for an office that the US Constitution says you're not qualified to hold?

I guess you support the Constitution when or if it's not in your way to elevating yourself. Well, that will not do. We're coming out of the Obama Administration, someone with the split on nationality, American mother, Kenyan father. But by all counts, he seems to have born in the USA. But the Kenyan father is what disqualified him. Too bad the birthers didn't realize that. But you knew that. I knew that. Everyone who really understands the US Constitution knows that.

So, you're not only the son of a foreign national, you were born on foreign soil, the very situation that the US Constitution provision requiring all candidates for President to be natural born citizens was to prevent. A natural born citizen is a son or daughter of 2 US citizens, natural born or naturalized, and born on US soil.

And then we have this from wiki and Politico:

Committee assignments

According to transcripts as reported by Politico, in his first two years in the Senate, Cruz attended 17 of 50 public Armed Services Committee hearings, 3 of 25 Commerce Committee hearings, 4 of the 12 Judiciary Committee hearings, and missed 21 of 135 roll call votes during the first three months of 2015.[97]

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

You want to eradicate "radical Islam", yet you only attend 17 out o 40 public Armed Services Committee hearings? Why be on the committee if you won't attend the hearings? How can you claim you can lead on national security as President when you don't even take the issue seriously enough to do your job and show up at all 40 Armed Services Committee hearings? 17 out of 40 in your first 2 years? How many did you miss this year? That's not even half? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? You're a cheater, a no-show, a non-worker. You're a LOUSE.

You want to create some jobs for unemployed Americans? Apparently not, since you only attend 3 of the 25 Commerce Committee hearings. THREE OUT OF 25? And you want to be President of the United States??!! You've got to be joking?! No one who feels the economy is one of the top issues of the times with $19 trillion in debt, more people than jobs, and massive unemployment and underemployment of Americans, which is the primary duty of the Commerce Committee tp deal with, and you only show up 3 times out of 25??!! You're all hat, no cattle.

You only show up for 4 out of 12 Judiciary Committee Hearings? The Judiciary Committee is the primary committee responsible for immigration enforcement. You want to stop illegal immigration? REALLY? Well, the proof is in the pudding as they say and NO YOU DO NOT want to stop illegal immigration when you refuse to show up at the committee hearings responsible for enforcing US immigration law. This is a disgrace. You're all talk, no walk.

No record, no accomplishments, no work, no diligence, no show .... you're not about the American People or the United States, Ted Cruz. You're all about Ted Cruz and your wacky right wing religious bull crap which you obviously garnered from your Cuban father minister of Canada.

NO THANK YOU! Give me a Trump, some more Trump and absolutely nothing but the Trump.

Hell, by your own admission Ted, you can't even build the wall, you'd have to hire Trump to do it.

Trump, it's time to knock another one off the block and out of the race. Ted is not a nice guy, he's a real life, real time ... louse whose only interested in elevating himself, not our people, not our country.

Plus, he's a no show lazy person. Can you imagine, Donald, not showing up for your appearances on The Apprentice? I don't think NBC would have paid the bill that week. I don't see why we need to be paying the bills of Congresscritters who don't show up to do their jobs. When you're President, that's one of the many many things you need to help us fix.

Judy wrote (excerpt):

And then we get to the qualifications to be President.

One of which is natural born citizen.

Someone born in Canada to a Cuban father, is not eligible to hold this office of President under the US Constitution. You know that, I know that, yet you throw your name in the hat anyway. How much respect can you really hold for the US Constitution when you run for an office that the US Constitution says you're not qualified to hold?

I guess you support the Constitution when or if it's not in your way to elevating yourself. Well, that will not do. We're coming out of the Obama Administration, someone with the split on nationality, American mother, Kenyan father. But by all counts, he seems to have born in the USA. But the Kenyan father is what disqualified him. Too bad the birthers didn't realize that. But you knew that. I knew that. Everyone who really understands the US Constitution knows that.

So, you're not only the son of a foreign national, you were born on foreign soil, the very situation that the US Constitution provision requiring all candidates for President to be natural born citizens was to prevent. A natural born citizen is a son or daughter of 2 US citizens, natural born or naturalized, and born on US soil.

Not so fast, Judy. As I'm sure you're aware, there are legal scholars that would disagree with you on this. I attempted to clean the following up for easier reading. All the original sources can be found at the link.



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.. 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. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress. .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. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.. 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’s Commentaries,. 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. 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 . . . . 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.

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.. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.. 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,and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.

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.

Tags:

• Constitutional Law
• Harvard Law Review Forum
• Legal History

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

McCain was not a "natural born citizen". He was born abroad in Panama. He wasn't eligible to be President of the United States. The bill in the US Senate was introduced by Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as sponsors of the "resolution". Are you really that easily fooled? Honestly? Congress doesn't change the Constitution with a "resolution". Neither can Congress "interpret" the Constitution. Only the states can change the US Constitution and only the Courts can "interpret" the US Constitution.

If you go back to 1789 Constitution, 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts, you will see quite clearly that children of US citizens born overseas were not automatically citizens and therefore not "natural born citizens". You will also see quite clearly that children born to fathers or mothers who were not US citizens were not even citizens, let alone "natural born citizens". Cruz wasn't born in the US and his father wasn't a US citizen.

Therefore, the definition and clear meaning, intent and purpose of the "natural born citizen" requirement in the US Constitution is:

1. Born to 2 US citizen parents, natural born or naturalized
2. Born on US soil

So until the States decide to change this Article of the US Constitution, the will of our founders stands as written and rightly so.

And the reason is so obvious. When one of your parents is a citizen of another nation, then you are a citizen of that nation. When you are born in another country, and one of your parents is a citizen of that country or another country, then you are a citizen of their country, or at least eligible to be one. That creates dual citizenship. We do not want Presidents with dual-citizenship or eligibility for dual citizenship based on place of birth or citizenship of the parents in the American White House. Our Founders didn't want it, and every American with 2 live brain cells still connected shouldn't want it either.

Sorry, but all the fools telling their foreign born children "you can be President" are just that, fools.

So stop it. These divided loyalties are destroying our nation. If I hear another candidate for President wailing about their "immigrant" parentage, I'll puke. If you think I'll put up with Cruz doing that for 4 years, you must think again. And it shows up already in Ted Cruz, who can't build the wall himself, he'd appoint Donald Trump to build it for him. He can't define "amnesty" until he asked about it on the 4th question. He wants to "secure the border first", then figure out what to do with all the illegal aliens that are here. Come On.

My husband and many of his friends were born abroad because their parents worked overseas for an oil company. They've known all their lives they couldn't be President. Yes, all their parents are US citizens. Yes, they eventually moved back to the states at different ages when their parents retired and came home. But they grew up overseas and their view is different on a lot of things. They understand fully why they're not eligible to run for President. They don't care. It doesn't bother them. They don't feel cheated in any way, shape or form, because they're Americans and put the best interest of our country first, far and above any personal aspirations they might have.

Why isn't Ted Cruz such a person? Because Ted Cruz is selective on the US Constitution. And we don't need someone like that in the White House. I mean Cruz thinks we need to Amend the US Constitution to end automatic birthright citizenship when we don't. We just need to stop handing out Social Security numbers and passports to anchor babies. It's that simple. He probably thinks we need to Amend the US Constitution to stop the federal government from exceeding its authority by admitting immigrants into the US, when we don't. The federal government has only 1 authority with regards to immigration under the US Constitution and that is to prohibit it, not admit it.

Ted Cruz is eligible to be a member of the US Senate, he's eligible to serve on a federal court, but he is NOT eligible to President of the United States, because Senators and Judges must only be citizens, and not natural born citizens, another element of proof that there is a gigantic difference between just being a US citizen and a natural born citizen. The Founders wanted candidates for President who had no confusion, no split of loyalty, no torn emotions, and no sympathy for foreign affairs based on their own personal lives. The Founders wanted candidates with one language, under the jurisdiction of one flag, with one sole loyalty to the American People. And that starts with at least second generation Americans.

That's why the clause is there, that's why it's still there, and it's way past time Americans insisted we abide it, regardless of what dishonest lawyers write from globalist universities.

There were quite a few "legal scholars" who said slavery was legal in our little free nation of free people, too, when it clearly wasn't because it violated the whole purpose of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Footnote about Neal Katyal, the primary author of your article:

US citizen born in the US to "Indian immigrant" parents.

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

So they come in, they have children, they send them to law school, and bingo .... they change the US Constitution with an "article"?

No, they do not. Under the US Constitution, he is not eligible to be President. Under his "article", he would be. See the problem with self-serving "scholars"?

Judy wrote:

Oh MW. Quoting people who don't know what they're talking about is really a sad and tragic endeavor.

So are you saying you're more versed on the U.S. Constitution than a couple legal scholars from Harvard. No, I don't think so! Is it possible your reading comprehension skills are challenged? I only asked that because I thought the research material provided made complete sense. Why do you always, without fail, attempt to discredit the messenger when you disagree with the message? You need to learn how to live with the fact that you may not always be right. You made your case and they (Harvard scholars) mad theirs. So, with that said, let's just move on.

Originally Posted by MW

So are you saying you're more versed on the U.S. Constitution than a couple legal scholars from Harvard. No, I don't think so! Is it possible your reading comprehension skills are challenged? I only asked that because I thought the research material provided made complete sense. Why do you always, without fail, attempt to discredit the messenger when you disagree with the message? You need to learn how to live with the fact that you may not always be right. You made your case and they (Harvard scholars) mad theirs. So, with that said, let's just move on.

Yes, I am more versed, much more versed in fact.

I only speak about things that I'm already an expert on, MW. You should know that by now.

No they are not "Harvard Scholars". One graduated from Yale Law School, Neal Katyal, and Paul Clement graduated from Harvard Law School. You can tell from their article, they're not scholars of any kind with regard to the eligibility clause of the US Constitution. They are not telling the truth in their article, they are expressing a personal political opinion in their article.

For example, they write that the term "natural born citizen" is "defined" in the First Congress's statute, referring to the 1790 Naturalization Act. This is a lie. A bold-faced lie. The 1790 Naturalization Act does not define the term "natural born citizen". It includes children of US citizens born abroad as "natural born citizens", but then in 1795 takes it away and reverts them to just citizens.

A naturalization act does not apply to natural born citizens, because natural born citizens are children of US citizens born in the US and no naturalization issues apply. When your citizenship is dependent upon some clause in a naturalization act, then you are not a natural born citizen, which is why the 1795 act corrected the mistake about citizen children born abroad in the 1790 act.

They also lied about Cruz's father's situation claiming that Cruz is a natural born citizen because his father was at one time a resident of the United States. The act provides that the father must first be a citizen and then a resident, not just a resident, a resident citizen. Really, their article is laughable.

Copies of the full texts of the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts are contained in the link below:

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-...ation1790.html

The reason the term "natural born citizen" is only required for President and Vice President in the US Constitution is because of the power of the Presidency regards to trade, treaties and defense. It's about unquestioned loyalty.

Being a "natural born citizen" is not a requirement in the Constitution for any other federal office or appointment, only citizen of the United States. Senators and Representatives in Congress don't have to be "natural born citizens", only citizens. The founders created the higher standard of natural born citizen for the office of President and Vice President because of the power of the office and the need for unwavering undivided loyalty to the US and the American People.

Americans have always known this. It's why the issue arises during every election when we have non-natural born citizens running for President. It's a simple issue and people and voters need to rely on themselves to vote and abide the Constitution when they do.

Only two Presidents have been elected who were not natural born citizens of the United States. Chester A Arthur and Barack Obama. Chester A Arthur's eligibility was raised and then ignored when running for Vice President. Then the President, James Garfield, was assassinated, and Chester Arthur was sworn into office as President. He served the remainder of the term, but his eligibility became an issue during re-election and he was never actually elected to the Office of President.

So, Barack Obama is the only person elected President of the United States who was not a natural born citizen.

I don't think that's a mistake that should be repeated.

Marco Rubio has the same problem. He's not a natural born citizen either, because his parents weren't US citizens when he was born.

Northern Exposure



snopes

updated From the archive


snopes




Claim: Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States because he was born in Canada.

---

FALSE

---

Example: [Collected via Twitter, March 2015]





Origins: Well before Texas senator Ted Cruz officially announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination on 23 March 2015, pundits had been questioning his eligibility to hold the office he sought

Report Advertisement

due to the fact that he was born in Canada rather than in the United States. Moreover, Cruz's father was a native-born Cuban who did not obtain U.S. citizenship until long after the birth of his son.

One of the issues of controvery was that Article II,Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states "No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of President" but doesn't precisely define what the term "natural born citizen" means: Cruz was born to a Cuban father, who escaped during the revolution, and an American mother, who was the first in her family to go to college and who became a computer programmer in the 1950s. Because of Cruz's Canadian birth, some have questioned whether he qualifies to be president. Being a "natural-born" citizen is one of the three eligibility requirements to be president laid out in the constitution.

But the weight of legal evidence supports that the term "natural-born" also applies to people born abroad to parents who are U.S. citizens (which Cruz's mom was). Cruz considers Houston, where he was raised, his hometown.
The term "natural born citizen" has generally been interpreted to refer to any person who qualified for U.S. citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, and in that regard Ted Cruz meets the requirement for "natural born citizen" even though he was born outside the U.S. and had anon-U.S. citizen parent. The relevant U.S. Code that defines who "shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" includes the following condition: 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.
Since Ted Cruz's mother, the former Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, was a U.S. citizen born in Wilmington, Delaware, who had lived for at least a decade in the United States, he qualified for U.S. citizenship at birth under this condition.

In an article entitled "Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president?" published by theConstitution Center on 28 October 2013, scholar Sarah Helene Duggin explained that while the Supreme Court has never ruled on the precise meaning of a "natural born citizen," previous presidential bids by foreign-born candidates such as John McCain and George Romney have established legal precedents for Cruz to run in 2016. Duggin also pointed to the Naturalization Act of 1790, which states that "children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens": The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that "children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens."

There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.
The Harvard Law Review agreed with Duggin's assessment, writing that there was "no question" about Cruz's eligibility: "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."
The Congressional Research Service also weighed in on the issue when questions were raised about President Obama's birth certificate in 2009: "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."
Another issue was that since Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, he also qualified for Canadian citizenship at birth. Although nothing in the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits a U.S. President from holding dual citizenship, such a situation could create a politically contentious situation regarding a President with "divided loyalties" even if the law did allow it.

However, there is a difference between merely being eligible for citizenship in a second country and actually holding such citizenship. Many U.S. citizens have been born under circumstances that made them eligible for citizenship in another country as well, but they never took any action to actually claim that second citizenship, such as residing in the second country as an adult, working for its government, serving in its military, voting in its elections, applying for a passport, or the like. Cruz apparently never made any overt attempt to claim Canadian citizenship: The senator's office said Cruz has never embraced his legal rights in Canada.

"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," spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told the newspaper. "To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce."
Nonetheless, both U.S. and Canadian authorities opined that Cruz was in fact a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen: By 1970, the Cruzes had moved to the Canadian oil patch, where they launched a seismic-data business. For purpose of citizenship, being foreigners made no difference.

"If a child was born in the territory, he is Canadian, period," said France Houle, a law professor at the University of Montreal. "He can ask for a passport. He can vote."

The fact that Cruz left Canada when he was 4 doesn't affect his status there, either.

"If you leave when you're 2 minutes old, you're still an American. It's the same in Canada," said Allison Christians, a law professor at McGill University in Montreal. "He's a Canadian citizen."

Having practiced international tax law in the U.S. for 25 years, Christians has made a close study of citizenship rules. They often come into play in tax cases.

"They can feel as American as they want. But the question of citizenship is determined by the law of the territory in which you were physically born," she said. "It's not up to the Cruz family to decide whether they're citizens."

"The U.S. and Cuba have very similar legal patterns and requirements," said David Abraham, a professor of immigration and citizenship law at the University of Miami.

The situation reflects the overlapping jurisdictions, said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, who called birthright citizenship common in English-speaking countries.

"If Ted Cruz was born in Canada, he is Canadian. He is American. He is a dual citizen," he said.
All of that is now moot, however, because in 2013 Ted Cruz took steps to formally renounce any claim to Canadian citizenship: Lest any questions remain about Sen. Ted Cruz's national allegiance, the Texas Republican announced he was renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, and he released his birth certificate to put to rest any questions about his background.

"Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter," Cruz wrote in his statement.

"Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship," he continued. "Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American."
That process of renunciation was accomplished by May of 2014: The Texas Republican was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. As such, he was a dual citizen — an American because of his mother, and Canadian because the country, like America, grants automatic citizenship to anyone born there.

When the news of his dual citizenship surfaced [in 2013], some began to question his eligibility to become president. (In truth, that was never in jeopardy. Most legal experts said Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen," a requirement for the White House job, as stated in the Constitution.)

Then [Cruz] took immediate steps to renounce his Canadian citizenship.
In May of 2014 the Government of Canada issued a certificate acknowledging Ted Cruz's renunciation of Canadian citizenship as of 14 May 2014.

Last updated: 23 March 2015

http://www.snopes.com/politics/cruz/canada.asp

To be a US Senator, the following eligibility requirements apply:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...iclei#section3

To be President or Vice President of the United States:

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...cleii#section1

There is a difference between the citizenship requirement to be a US Senator and President of the United States. There is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States.

Ted Cruz meets the citizenship requirement to be a US Senator, because he is a citizen of the United States under US naturalization law. Ted Cruz does not meet the requirement to be President or Vice President, because he is not a natural born citizen.

Under Canadian Law, Ted Cruz is a native born citizen of Canada. The fact that Ted Cruz had to renounce his dual citizenship in Canada is proof enough that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

A natural born citizen of the United States has no other citizenship to renounce and does not become a citizen through naturalization law.

If there was no difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen, then the founders would not have made the distinction in the US Constitution. But they did, and they did so for a very important reason.

Donald Trump is polling better than ever. Here’s why.

By Philip Bump December 4 at 10:22 AM

The Republican establishment is running out of time.

It's Dec. 4, 58 days until the Iowa caucuses and voters begin putting their votes where their polls have been for months. Donald Trump has led the field for basically the entire second half of the year -- a lead that continues in a new poll out on Friday from CNN/ORC. Donald Trump hasn't trailed in CNN/ORC polls since June; his support and lead now are the biggest he's seen in their polls yet.

If Donald Trump were suddenly to vanish, the news for the establishment doesn't get much better. In second is Ted Cruz, who's fought the establishment from the inside for years. In third -- and still sinking -- is Ben Carson. The three have the combined support of 2 out of every 3 Republican voters.

That support is pretty even among the groups that were large enough to include in the pollsters' demographic break-outs. There's one remarkable exception: Education level. Trump is much more strongly supported by those with no college degree than he is by those with one. Cruz leads that latter group by three points (over Marco Rubio). Trump leads among those with no degree by 34.

This new poll also helps Trump hit a new high in the average of recent polls. His polling average is the highest it has been since he entered the race, at 30.8 percent. His lead isn't quite at its peak, but it is getting close.

So if you're the establishment, looking at this and wringing your already well-wrung hands, you wonder what's happening -- how this guy could come in from nowhere and steal your party's heart?

One answer is obvious: Republicans have strong opinions about illegal immigration, and Donald Trump -- intentionally or not -- has made that central to his campaign.

In CNN/ORC's poll, more than half of Republicans think undocumented immigrants should be deported -- a far larger percentage than of Democrats or independents. Among Trump supporters, the number hits two-thirds. That's despite the fact that most Republicans don't think deportation is even possible. Which is squarely in Trump's wheelhouse: Anger at a thing but not having a clear way of fixing it.

(Republicans also think deporting illegal immigrants would help the economy; Democrats and independents largely think it would hurt.)

Immigration isn't the thing Republicans are concerned about most, though. The survey still finds that the economy and terrorism are the things Republicans are worried about most (though they're disproportionately worried about immigration).

And on both of those things (and everything else), Trump is seen as the best candidate. The margin by which he leads the second-closest candidate is much smaller on foreign policy than on the economy, but he still leads. (And, for those wondering: He is still seen as the most likely victor by more than half of his party.)

As Trump's support has grown, so to has the extent to which people see him as being able to tackle tough problems. He's seen a big net increase in those who think he's the best bet to handle foreign policy and the Islamic State, as Jeb Bush tanks.

The establishment keeps seeming to hope that Trump will fade as more people start paying attention to the election. Could be! But it is December, and Trump's polling better than ever, literally. If there is a "break glass in case of emergency" solution out there, the Republican Party better start investing in some hammers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ver-heres-why/

Click on the link for the great graphics that show the numbers. They are astounding at this point with still so many in the race.

On Cruz and Rubio citizenship. They neither one are natural born citizens. They're citizens eligible to run for Congress, but they are not natural born citizens eligible to be President.

Voters will decide who they want for President. Hopefully it will be someone who is a natural born citizen and eligible to hold the office, someone who doesn't use their personal foreign heritage as a reason for policy of any kind.

By Sheila Wolfe Election 2016, Law, PoliticsAugust 17, 2015

Ted Cruz Should Prove His Mother Was A U.S. Citizen When He Was Born

According to Article 1, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, the requirements to become a United States Senator include that the candidate must:

be at least 30 years old.
a United States citizen for at least nine years at the time of their election to the Senate.
a resident and inhabitant of the state they are being elected to represent in the Senate.

According to an “authenticated timeline of known facts concerning the citizenship of Senator Ted Cruz” both of his parents were Canadian citizens at the time of his birth. The timeline reveals:

In 1957 Rafael Cruz, Ted’s father, attended the University of Texas as a foreign student on a four-year student visa, obtained at the US Consulate in Havana.

In 1962 when Rafael graduated and his student visa expired he obtained political asylum and was issued a green card, but remained a Cuban citizen.

In 1969 Rafael Cruz married Eleanor Darragh Wilson. According to my research Eleanor claims to have been born in Delaware, but so far I’ve not been able to track down a birth certificate for Eleanor.

On December 22, 1970 Ted was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to Rafael and Eleanor Cruz, both Canadian Citizens, which voided his prior American green card status.

In 1974 the Cruz family moves to the United States.

In 2005 Rafael Cruz renounces his Canadian Citizenship and becomes a United States Citizen.

In August 2013 Ted releases his Canadian birth certificate.

He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.

“Generally speaking, under the Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent was a foreign diplomat,” said ministry spokeswoman Julie Lafortune.

While Ted’s birth certificate shows that his mother was born in Delaware, there is no proof that is the case. Additionally, if she were born in Delaware and was originally a United States citizen, did she retain that citizenship in Canada?

In May 14, 2014, Ted Cruz received formal notification that the renunciation of his Canadian citizenship was official. But where is Eleanor’s birth certificate? I can say I was born in Delaware, but that doesn’t make it true.

If Ted Cruz’s mother was in fact born in Delaware, did she have dual citizenship when Ted was born in Canada?

Should Ted Cruz be stripped of his Senate seat? If so, he surely isn’t eligible to be in the White House.

WATCH Ted Cruz in Three Minutes from Time.com:

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politic...n-he-was-born/
__________________________

So there was an issue even with his Senate seat.

It's time Americans put to bed the issue of children born to foreign parents or born outside of the country from pursuing the White House. It needs to be in the party platforms so that their personal foreign heritage is not part of the issues Americans have to decide or spend time investigating. All candidates for President and Vice President need to be natural born citizens, born in the US to 2 US citizen parents. Period.

Furthermore, while I'm not in support of changing the US Constitution over it, all members of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate should also be natural born citizens by choice of the voters. The United States didn't get in the mess we're in because of opinions and views of natural born citizens. No, the mess we're in is the result of immigrant-citizens in Congress, people elected by foreign interest lobbies through their personal heritage to push legislation, policies, funding and benefits for the "immigrant" community and their foreign "homelands" at the expense and to the detriment of the citizen community.

When you start hearing language never used before in our country like "homeland" and "solidarity", these are not American terms used in our country by Americans, these are foreign influence terms used in mostly socialist countries.

But it's all up to the voters to decide who they want, whether it turns out to be a mistake or not. I just hope Americans don't repeat the mistake of choosing a candidate for their party or in the general election to hold the office of President or Vice President who is not a natural born citizen.