Thread: In Iowa, Donald Trump intensifies 'birther' attack against Ted Cruz

In Iowa, Donald Trump intensifies 'birther' attack against Ted Cruz

By MJ Lee, CNN Politics and Finance Reporter

Updated 10:00 PM ET, Sat January 9, 2016

Clear Lake, Iowa (CNN)Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Ted Cruz at two Iowa campaign rallies on Saturday, warning voters that the Texas senator's Canadian birth raises serious questions about his eligibility to become president.

The attacks come with just three weeks to go before Iowa casts the nation's first votes for president, and recent polling indicates that Trump is trailing Cruz in the Hawkeye State.

Speaking at an afternoon rally in Clear Lake, Trump said Cruz, who was born to an American mother in Canada and for most of his life retained dual citizenship, cannot claim that the matter is a "settled issue."

"You can't have a person running for office, even though Ted is very glib, and he goes out and says, 'Well, I'm a natural born citizen,' " Trump said. "The point is, you're not."

Cruz dismisses 'swamp theories' on citizenship

Trump also warned voters that legal challenges to Cruz's eligibility -- despite the views of most legal experts who say he is qualified to be commander in chief -- could be tied up in court for years. As he did earlier this week, Trump offered Cruz some free legal advice.
Ted Cruz dismisses citizenship 'swamp theories'

Ted Cruz dismisses citizenship 'swamp theories' 00:49

"I say to Ted, as a Republican because I think it's very important, you gotta get it straightened out," Trump said, urging Cruz to seek a "declaratory judgment" from a judge so there's no doubt about his eligibility.

The real-estate mogul also pointed to Arizona Sen. John McCain, who also faced questions about his eligibility to be president. Trump said although the 2008 GOP presidential nominee was born in the Panama Canal Zone, his circumstances were distinct from Cruz's.

"The difference is his two parents were both in the military," Trump said. "What are you gonna do? Say, 'Mom and dad, you should have taken me back home to be born, I can't run for president?' He was born in a military base, and I understand that."

The 2016 race, Obama's legacy, congressional gridlock — get the most important political news delivered to your inbox. By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy.

McCain himself commented on the issue earlier this week, calling Cruz's eligibility a legitimate question.

Earlier Saturday, Trump said at a rally in Ottumwa that Cruz "has to straighten out his problems," a veiled reference to the so-called "birther" issue. But he declined to elaborate further, saying, "we'll discuss that later."

Speaking to reporters at the conclusion of his 28-county bus tour in Waverly, Iowa, on Saturday night, Cruz said candidates such as Trump are "dismayed" by his success in the polls and raising questions about his citizenship to avoid substantive debates about the future of the country.

"I recognize that there are candidates in the field that don't want to talk about those issues, and they want to instead encourage the good people of the media to go down rabbit trails and engage in silly sideshows," Cruz said. "I don't think the American people are interested."

But recently, Cruz has had to aggressively push back on Trump's questions about his eligibility for the presidency. He renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in 2014, and on Friday, Cruz's campaign shared with the conservative website Breitbart a copy of his mother's birth certificate showing her born in the United States.

'Totally opposed to ethanol'

Trump is attacking Cruz on other fronts.

In Ottumwa, he took a swipe at the Texas senator over ethanol, saying Cruz -- who in the past has opposed federal subsidies for the corn-produced biofuel -- is only now claiming he's a friend of farmers.

"All of a sudden he was getting clobbered, and all of a sudden he said, 'Ah, oh, I'm for ethanol.' You can't do that. You can't do that with you know, three weeks to go, you're not allowed to do that. So, nobody really believes it," Trump said.

Cruz has said repeatedly he believes in leveling the playing field for the energy industry, calling to end mandates and subsidies for the ethanol and oil industries alike. He won ideological admirers when he attended a high-profile agricultural summit in Des Moines last year and refused to endorse the federal Renewable Fuel Standard in front of an unfriendly crowd and has not shied away from his unpopular stance. But in recent days, he has tried to finesse the complicated politics and is trying to focus voters' gaze toward his plans to roll back Environmental Protection Agency regulations on certain ethanol blends and to vigorously pursue antitrust cases to open up new markets.

And the Texas senator rejects Trump's claim that his positions on ethanol are based on donations from the oil industry, despite that most of his super PAC's anchor donors have made their money in the sector.

"It's factually inaccurate that the oil company's lobbyists are supporting me," Cruz told reporters Saturday night in Waverly. "The major oil companies and their lobbyists are not. They're supporting other candidates in this race. Those are the facts, and facts matter."

Trump raises questions among voters

In Clear Lake, however, Trump's attacks seemed to resonate among some voters.

Steve Ziller, a farmer from Belmond, Iowa, said he was "amazed" to learn that Cruz was born in Canada.

"I really did not know that he was from Canada. So that was new to me. I was not aware of that," said Ziller, adding that he agrees with Trump that this could raise questions about Cruz's eligibility to be president.

Ziller, who is undecided and leaning toward Trump but likes Cruz, also said he was aware of Trump's recent attacks on Cruz's stance on ethanol subsidies. "Not very happy with that, to be honest. That's pretty big for the farm economy."

Dave Windmuller, a small-business owner from Mason City, said he personally doesn't question Cruz's eligibility to be president. Nevertheless, he said, it's now become a political liability that Cruz will have to quickly address.

"If there is any question, it should be addressed before the nomination," said Windmuller, who is likely to vote for either Trump or Cruz. "He should affirmatively do it before the nomination; otherwise, it's gong to be a cloud hanging over his head, and that will hurt him."

CNN's Sara Murray, Sophie Tatum, Theodore Schleifer and Eugene Scott contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politi...owa/index.html

For over 220 years, Americans have known that to be President and Vice President of the United States, you have to be born in the US to 2 US citizens which is the definition of natural born citizen in our language and has always been. Every other form of citizenship is by separate law, such as naturalization law or the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment didn't modify Article II so Article II stands as written. Naturalization law doesn't change our language or the definition, meanings or purpose of Article II.

Why would any American want to someone to be President or Vice President who wasn't born in the US to 2 US citizens and not eligible for the most powerful position in our country?

I realize people made exceptions with McCain because his parents were in the military and he was born on a military base. But even that wasn't right, McCain wasn't a natural born citizen under Article II.

Obama wasn't eligible, not because he wasn't born to 2 US citizen parents. Everyone focused on "where he was born", which is only part of the issue, the other is who is parents are and only his mother was a US citizen, his father was a Kenyan here on a student visa.

Rubio isn't eligible, because even though he was born here, his citizenship comes from the 14th Amendment, not his parents, who were Cuban immigrants and weren't US citizens and thus he is not a natural born citizen under Article II.

Bobby Jindal isn't eligible, because like Rubio, even though he was born here, his citizenship comes from the 14th Amendment and he isn't a natural born citizen either, because his parents weren't US citizens, they were Indian immigrants.

It's very simple. Natural born citizen has two conditions:

1. Born in the US
2. 2 US Citizen Parents

End of story. Very simple. Why would anyone want to deviate from this? It's for our own protection to have a leader who is a natural born citizen of citizens born in the US.

Trump Trolls Cruz Again, Cites Harvard’s Laurence Tribe: Natural Born Citizen Matter Not Settled
by Breitbart News9 Jan 2016


GOP frontrunner Donald Trump trolled Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
, his chief rival, again on Twitter on Saturday over whether Cruz meets the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirements of a president.

“Constitutional law expert #Laurence Tribe of Harvard says “wrong to say it (natural born citizen) is a settled matter-it isn’t settled),” Trump tweeted on Saturday.

Trump was citing comments that Laurence Tribe—a high-profile liberal constitutional law professor at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama among other high profile figures—recently told ABC News that he does not believe the natural born citizen question is “settled law.”

“I don’t agree that it’s ‘settled law,’” Tribe said. “The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue one way or the other, as I believe Ted ought to know.”

Tribe added that he personally believes Cruz is eligible, but that doesn’t mean it’s “settled law.”

“My own view as a constitutional scholar is that the better view — the one most consistent with the entire Constitution — is the broader definition, according to which Cruz would be eligible,” Tribe said, noting that he believes that a natural born citizen should include, as ABC News wrote, “anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth and doesn’t need to be naturalized.”

Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on Dec. 22, 1970. As two powerful exclusive pieces from Breitbart’s Joel Pollak show, Cruz’s mother and father were listed on an electors list in 1974 in Canada. Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, had already publicly confirmed he applied for and received Canadian citizenship back when they lived in Canada in the 1970s.

The issue of Cruz’s mother, however, had never been answered before and it had never been clear whether she had applied for or received Canadian citizenship until this week when Cruz’s campaign finally confirmed she was only in Canada on a work permit and never applied for or received Canadian citizenship.

Cruz’s campaign also provided Breitbart News with his mother’s birth certificate, proving she was born with U.S. citizenship in Delaware. All of that means that Cruz was born with U.S. citizenship since he was born to one U.S. citizen parent.

That still has not answered the question of natural born citizen, however, and even though many legal experts believe what Tribe does—that being a U.S. citizen at birth makes someone a natural born citizen—there are definitely also some who believe the definition should be more strict and based off the mid-1700s book The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” Vattel’s book reads.

Under that definition, since Cruz was born in Canada—and also importantly since his father was not a U.S. citizen—he would not be a natural born citizen.

That stricter definition of natural born citizen would also, interestingly, mean that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is not a natural born citizen either. Both of Rubio’s parents were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975—after his birth in 1971.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-yet-settled/

Extremely well said Judy - Thank you ! I wish more people understood and appreciated this.

That still has not answered the question of natural born citizen, however, and even though many legal experts believe what Tribe does—that being a U.S. citizen at birth makes someone a natural born citizen—there are definitely also some who believe the definition should be more strict and based off the mid-1700s book The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” Vattel’s book reads.

Under that definition, since Cruz was born in Canada—and also importantly since his father was not a U.S. citizen—he would not be a natural born citizen.

That stricter definition of natural born citizen would also, interestingly, mean that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is not a natural born citizen either. Both of Rubio’s parents were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975—after his birth in 1971.

The "liberal" view is to change the Constitution from what it actually says and means since inception and modify Article II by the 14th Amendment or naturalization law. The 14th Amendment could have included a change to Article II, but it didn't and we could Amendment Article II to say "whatever naturalization law says" but we haven't and I can't think of any reason why we would. We don't expand the meaning of the Constitution's Article II to conform to Laws like Naturalization Laws instead of the other way around like it's supposed to be. Laws do not amend the US Constitution, nor do Amendments to the Constitution that don't apply to specific provisions amend those provisions. The 14th Amendment didn't amend Article II and it does not change the meaning of a natural born citizen.

All the 14th Amendment did was provide citizenship to freed slaves. Then the US Supreme Court out of vengeance on another issue ruled a child of Chinese immigrants who weren't even living in the US was a US citizen, when he wasn't but the Court made him one by a Supreme Court Ruling, so all these children of immigrants are citizens now, not by the Constitution, not by natural order, not by common sense, not by logic, not in the best interest of our nation or the purpose of citizenship, but by a Court Ruling.

If Americans want to continue to dilute and poison US citizenship, we can do that. If we want to put our country in the hands of foreign influence, foreign culture, foreign laws, foreign lifestyles, foreign ways, foreign governments, foreign interests, foreign thought and ideologies, we can do that. All one has to do is change the Constitution with an Amendment to do so. But why would Americans want to do that for the benefit of immigrants or their children?

Look around folks. It's already gone too far with the "anchor baby" debacle. Are you happy with the outcome? Are you happy with what Obama has done to our country? Obama doesn't think like a citizen of citizens, and his policies aren't the policies of citizens of citizens. Citizens of split heritage have a different view. They're aren't attached to our country in the same way as citizens of citizens born in the USA. They aren't. They're different. It takes time and the Founders believed at least 1 generation for children of immigrants to assimilate assuming their parents assimilated and became citizens before they were born. It probably takes longer, but that's what they decided for the benefit of our nation and there is no prima facie case to support a belief that it takes any less.

We need to return to the day when our candidates run for office without writing books about their parents immigration history as a resume to be President or Vice President of the United States. We need to return to the day when candidates for President and Vice President write books because of what their citizen parents did for the country or perhaps better yet, what they themselves have done for it, or leave the writing of books aside until after they've actually accomplished something worth writing about and their personal career aspirations play second fiddle to the best interest of the United States.

Originally Posted by JohnK

Extremely well said Judy - Thank you ! I wish more people understood and appreciated this.

Well, our poor country and citizens have been so bombarded with this massive immigration in the past 40 years that everything is about the immigrants instead of the citizens. It's gone way too far, we all know that, and in the midst of immigrant this and immigrant that, citizens due to our nature to be fair and equal and kind and generous have unfortunately not stood up for our country or ourselves.

It's time we do so and put an end to the nonsense that children of non-citizens or children born in other countries or children born to a non-citizen and born abroad do not start campaigns to run for President and Vice President of the United States.

I blame the ignorant candidates most of whom are lawyers and know better, as well as the corrupt political parties and incompetent election officials who are more concerned with tax returns and financial disclosure statements than they are with ensuring someone who files to run for the Office of President or Vice President was born in the US to 2 US citizen parents and is actually eligible to hold the Office.

Trump is the only one with the guts, courage, knowledge and proper concern for our country to even bring it up. Good for him.

Trump is starting to sound extremely desperate.

According to constitutional experts, Cruz does meet one of the 3 conditions of being a natural born citizen. That will not change unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes the issue on, which the probably won't, and rules otherwise. The closer the Iowa primary gets, the more desperate Trump seems to become.

Originally Posted by MW

Trump is starting to sound extremely desperate.

According to constitutional experts, Cruz does meet one of the 3 conditions of being a natural born citizen. That will not change unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes the issue on, which the probably won't, and rules otherwise. The closer the Iowa primary gets, the more desperate Trump seems to become.

LOL!! That's just to be a citizen by birth through either naturalization law or the 14th Amendment, not a natural born citizen through natural elements of blood (jus sanguinis) and soil (jus soli).

If you read their articles it's "we believe" "we would like to see" "we interpret through the whole body of the Constitution" "we have liberal views" which means they want to see it changed. They also talk about it in terms of citizen, citizen by birth, but never speak to the real term of natural born citizen because they know what it means, they didn't go to law school without studying Vattel if they studied the Constitution. I mean if I learned it in my college Constitutional law class, then I'm sure they did, too.

So lawyers like Cruz, Rubio and Obama, they know they're not eligible. They're just pushing the envelope because Obama got away with it. And the only reason Obama got away with it is because McCain got away with it. McCain's is a little different because he was born on a military base while his 2 US Citizen parents were in the military but still under Article II, he was not eligible.

Yes, John McCain, was eligible and so is Cruz. I've already showed you, actually on several occasions, exactly why Cruz is eligible. If you think you more versed on the subject than respected experts that have weighed in on the issue, then so be it. Although, that does not mean you're correct and they're wrong. Forgive me for deciding to side with the experts on this. It just seems like the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by MW

Yes, John McCain, was eligible and so is Cruz. I've already showed you, actually on several occasions, exactly why Cruz is eligible. If you think you more versed on the subject than respected experts that have weighed in on the issue, then so be it. Although, that does not mean you're correct and they're wrong. Forgive me for deciding to side with the experts on this. It just seems like the right thing to do.

Americans know what a natural born citizen is to run for President or Vice President, it's born on US soil to 2 US citizens. We've known it our whole lives. We learned it in school, we learned it from our parents. This is something we're supposed to know so we know who to vote for and who not to vote for. Why you don't know that and apparently haven't known that your whole life, especially with you having served in the military for 20 years that you mentioned one day, is really troubling.

So, we'll just leave it there that this is yet another issue we'll have to agree to disagree about.