Main Menu

Crucial Cruz court test tomorrow

An expedited hearing is scheduled tomorrow (May 23)  in the appeal of Gallo and Korman to the Appellate Division of the New York  Third Judicial Department over dismissal of their action against Cruz . This is the appeal for which Einer Elhauge submitted the amicus brief that I wrote about previously.

It may well be that Prof. Elhauge’s brief is moot because the case was dismissed previously on technical grounds relating to the timeliness of filing the original challenge. The Albany Times Union wrote then:

According to the Board of Elections’ timeline, any specific challenges to Cruz’s right to appear on the ballot were due by Feb. 4, while the complaint by William Gallo of Nassau County and Barry Korman of New York City was submitted on Feb. 17.

The Board of Elections did not consider the merits of the challenge; however Acting State Supreme Court Justice David Weinstein made an interesting remark in his dismissal, describing the complaint as:

a series of exceedingly thin legal reeds that have never been adopted by any court in this State … would as likely create chaos and uncertainty as provide clarity.

 Update:

The New York Appellate Division affirmed the lower court decision. The challenge was dismissed because the filing was not timely.


Because some of the same persons who claimed Obama was ineligible to the presidency are challenging Ted Cruz, I decided that his legal eligibility gauntlet was on topic for this blog (just at Donald Trump is topical because he is a birther).

, , , , , ,

23 Responses to Crucial Cruz court test tomorrow

  1. avatar
    brygeneon March 23, 2016 at 3:39 am #

    Now, after seven or eight years, I am absolutely astonished to see the question of who is an Article II natural-born citizen the most interesting it has ever been.

  2. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 23, 2016 at 5:13 am #

    According to the Board of Elections’ timeline, any specific challenges to Cruz’s right to appear on the ballot were due by Feb. 4, while the complaint by William Gallo of Nassau County and Barry Korman of New York City was submitted on Feb. 17.

    After 7+ years of Obama birtherism and a year filled with Obama ballot challenges in pretty much every state, one would expect these people would know how to file timely by now. *smh*

  3. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 23, 2016 at 7:29 am #

    Does the phrase those who never learn from history are doomed to repeat it ring any bells? Birfers seem to be not ONLY ignorant, but illiterate to a large degree.

  4. avatar
    gorefan March 23, 2016 at 9:04 am #

    Notorial Dissent: Does the phrase those who never learn from history are doomed to repeat it

    Or as Lily Tomlin would say “Maybe if people started to listen, history would stop repeating itself.”

  5. avatar
    CH March 23, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

    Part 1 – Ted Cruz and his ‘naturalized’ citizenship – A History Lesson:

    Cruz keeps citing in his responses the Act of 1790 (long-standing U.S. Law) which did state that children born abroad to U.S. citizens (plural not singular) were considered ‘natural-born citizens’. HOWEVER what Cruz is NOT telling American citizens is that the Act of 1790 was REPEALED as in voided, voted out, nullified, NO LONGER LAW and REPLACED with the Act of 1795 which changed and only grants the ‘status of citizen’ NOT natural born to children born abroad to U.S.citizens (again plural). Why plural, because at the time these acts were written a woman with U.S. citizenship who had a child born abroad could not confer her U.S. citizenship onto her child – it could ONLY descend through the father. That right did not come into effect until the 1900s and only convey’s ‘citizen’ status ‘granted’ through naturalization process.

    Additionally, ‘children born abroad’ is regulated under the U.S. Immigration and “Naturalization” Act which does NOT confer natural-born status on those children. U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now, upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child’s citizenship status. If it is determined that the child can hold U.S. Citizenship a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. Passport would/will be issued to the parents who MUST ALSO RENOUNCE THE child’s Canadian (or other country’s) citizenship AT THE SAME TIME. Cruz has NOT produced his Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a very important document as it would clearly state that he held U.S. Citizenship, however he would only be a ‘naturalized’ citizen as it is again, governed under the Immigration & Naturalization Act, which ‘grant’s citizenship – you are NOT automatically ‘born’ with it, nor is it descended upon the child from the parent.

    Additionally, Canada did NOT recognize Dual Citizenship. Canadian officials say he is/was (since renounced) a ‘natural born Canadian citizen’ and nothing else. Since the U.S. did recognize dual citizenship, and per the granting of U.S. citizen status by the Consulate he would also have to, at age 18, go through the Naturalization process, renounce his Canadian Citizenship and take an oath of allegiance to the U.S.

    Part 2: 1971 SUPREME COURT RULING – Children BORN ABROAD ARE NATURALIZED CITIZENS

    Per the SUPREME COURT in Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), a case where the birth circumstances (child was born to American mother and Foreign Father in Italy) were nearly identical to those of Cruz, their ruling was as follows:

    “…Afroyim’s broad interpretation of the scope of the Citizenship Clause finds ample support in the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellei was not “born . . . in the United States,” but he was, constitutionally speaking, “naturalized in the United States.” Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. ANYONE ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP SOLELY UNDER THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.”

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

    PART 3: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (1866, 1872 and also in 1862):
    The Constitution states the Congress shall only have the power to determine a ‘naturalization process’ for citizens and who will be classified under the process as U.S. Citizens. In order to determine who would be eligible to become naturalized U.S. Citizens, the House of Representatives had to define what a ‘natural born citizen’ was.

    In 1862 During the 37th Congress Debate on the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    1866 during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

    Additionally in 1872, Bingham again defined ‘natural-born citizen’ during a House Floor hearing regarding the status of U.S. citizenship of Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain. Here he clearly states 2 requirements for being natural born…born to parents (mother and father) and within the jurisdiction of the United States:

    “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

    Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: “Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States…If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

    In this Bingham cites 2 factors that declares Dr. Houard to be a “natural-born citizen”: born of citizen “parents” (plural not singular therefore requiring you to have 2 U.S. Citizen parents for this status) AND born within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.

    PART 4: WHAT DOES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF MEAN? “Senator Jacob Howard, an author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment told us exactly what that meant and defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?“

    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum (issue) in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’

    PART 5 – Cruz’s background as we know it today:

    ‘Natural-born Citizen’ as defined by the very person responsible for the writing of the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham requires 3 things: that you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, that BOTH parents are citizens of the U.S. either by naturalization OR by being natural born themselves AND that both parents must NOT owe ANY allegiance to ANY FOREIGN country.

    CRUZ was born in Canada and NOT WITHIN THE REPUBLIC/JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Even if his mother was still a U.S. Citizen, his father WASN’T, thus per Bingham Cruz does NOT meet the requirement that BOTH parents MUST be U.S. Citizens and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen. His father was also a Canadian citizen and thus owed allegiance to Canada NOT the U.S. That disqualifies him. And if Cruz’s mother was a Canadian Citizen as the Canadian records indicate then its obvious that Cruz was not a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, but instead a Canadian citizen.

    Cruz’s mother married Alan Wilson in 1959 and they moved to London, England in 1960. She divorced her first husband in 1963 (per Alan Wilson). and continued to live in England until sometime after the death of a child she had (out of wedlock), Michael Wilson (not Alan Wilson’s son – he says they were definitely divorced but agreed to allow her to use his last name for the child).

    London records identify a Michael Wilson was born and died in 1966 and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, a London neighborhood. Eleanor then returns to Houston sometime in 1966 after the crib death of her son, where she meets Rafael Cruz. Rafael Cruz states that they moved to and were living in Canada sometime around 1966-1967 (he states they lived there for 8-years returning in 1975 so that makes it 1967. Canadian records show an address for them in 1975 in Calgary). He states he became a Canadian Citizen in 1968 and that he and Eleanor were married sometime around 1967-1968 (Ted says 1969) but where…Canada? Most likely. Non one can find a Marriage license for them here in the States.

    Because Cruz’s mother lived in London from 1960 to sometime in 1966 after the death of her first son, and then almost immediately ends up in Canada with Cruz sometime around 1967, she CLEARLY did not meet the required 10-year physical U.S. residency requirement which requires that at least 5 of those years must be spent physically within the U.S. BEFORE the birth of the child. (Alan Wilson continues to live in London and is still a U.S. citizen.

    As previously mentioned, at the time Cruz was born in 1970 Canada did not recognize dual citizenship and per their laws if you are born on Canadian soil (and even today in an airplane over Canadian airspace) you are a Canadian born citizen only (in 1970). Their dual citizenship clause was changed in 1977.

    Additionally, there is a documented report that Cruz’s parents voted in the 1974 Canadian Federal elections as Canadian citizens. This document can be found in Canadian government online searches.

    As for her possible Canadian citizenship, Canadian law at that time states that a foreign spouse (in this case Cruz’s mother) who was married to a Canadian Citizen (his father became one in 1968) and lived in Canada with said Canadian spouse (her husband) for 1-year AUTOMATICALLY became a Canadian citizen, which would account for the information that they voted in 1974 as Canadians and that their names appear as Canadian Citizens on the 1974 Canadian Election Voter list.

    This could quite possibly be the reason why Cruz hasn’t produced a Consular Report of Birth Abroad to substantiate his U.S. citizenship because he doesn’t have one. It is up to the U.S. Consulate to determine Cruz’s birth citizenship and if his parents went to the Consulate to report it, the Consulate most likely refused to ‘grant’ U.S. citizenship based on the fact that Cruz’s parents were Canadian citizens by virtue of his father becoming one and his mother meeting the statute of being married to one and living in the country for the 1-year required time, as well as Ted being born on Canadian soil which makes him a ‘natural-born CANADIAN’ citizen just like Rand Paul stated. Per Canada, they stated Ted was/is a Canadian and nothing more.

    Part 6 – Maine Gov. LaPage and his 2-Canadian Born Daughters (Naturalized NOT natural born)

    Recently, Maine Governor Paul LaPage made it known that the reason why he was supporting Trump was due to his being an actual ‘natural born citizen’ and he questioned Cruz’s citizenship because of his own personal experience with his first 2-daughters. While living in Canada for his job, LaPage (An American Citizen) and his wife (also an American Citizen) had 2-daughters born, one in 1975 and one in 1976 just a few years after Cruz was born and BEFORE Canada began to recognize dual citizenship (1977) In order for his 2-Daughters, who again were born to 2 U.S. Citizens in Canada, to claim their parent’s U.S. Citizenship their births had to be reported to the U.S. Consulate and they had to claim that citizenship by being “Naturalized U.S. Citizens” through U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION. LaPage checked with authorities and was flat out told that his daughters were NOT Eligible to run for President as they are ‘naturalized U.S. Citizens’ NOT Natural Born.

    Cruz only had “1” U.S. Citizen Parent and if 2-U.S. Citizen parents do not qualify their children to be ‘natural born citizens’ then MOST CERTAINLY 1 U.S. parent is NOT enough to make Cruz Natural Born.

    So, if the Governor of Maine’s children are not considered natural-born and are only ‘naturalized’ so is Cruz and that makes him ineligible…and more…HE KNOWS IT!

  6. avatar
    y_p_w March 23, 2016 at 3:50 pm #

    OK, where to start?

    First of all, it says “children of citizens”. So what does that mean? You emphasize the plural for “citizens”. So what about “children”? Does that mean only multiple birth? Or that the law didn’t kick in until the couple has a second child?

    You’re also incorrect that Canada didn’t recognize dual-citizenship, as they did. Their laws were such that one couldn’t naturalize under another citizenship and keep Canadian citizenship. That didn’t mean that Canada forced those born with multiple nationalities to choose one at a certain age. One could even naturalize as a Canadian and keep another nationality, as Canada had no control over whether another nation recognized their citizen as a national. In fact Ted Cruz was able to renounce his Canadian citizenship in 2014. Had he somehow lost his Canadian citizenship, they wouldn’t have allowed it.

    Also – there is no specific definition of what naturalized citizen means in the Constitution, nor that it precludes being a natural-born citizen in certain cases. Certainly there’s a statute that defined naturalization as acquisition of citizenship after birth, but that may not be applicable to Constitutional law.

    While you cite debate, there’s no specific requirement that the debate defines the extent of the 14th Amendment. Also – Cruz’s father would not have had the requisite residence (five years) in Canada to become naturalized as a Canadian. He became a Canadian citizen after Ted was born.

    Whatever was told to Governor LePage, it has no force of law. He in fact has claimed that his kids were naturalized after moving to the United States. That’s purely not the way it was supposed to happen. He clearly met the requirement to transmit his citizenship to his children when they were born in Canada. Also – the issuance of a citizenship document at a consulate is done by the State Department and not any immigration agency.

  7. avatar
    Scientist March 23, 2016 at 5:33 pm #

    CH: U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now, upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child’s citizenship status. If it is determined that the child can hold U.S. Citizenship a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. Passport would/will be issued to the parents who MUST ALSO RENOUNCE THE child’s Canadian (or other country’s) citizenship AT THE SAME TIME.

    Almost all your statements are untrue.

    1. A Consular Report of Birth Abroad is not a requirement,. It is suggested and is no doubt a smart thing to do to document the birth, but is NOT required. One meets the statutory requirements for citizenship or one does not. If one does and has no CRBA, one can still get a US passport by submitting your foreign birth certificate along with proof that your parent(s) were US citizen(s) and that they met the residency requirements.

    See here, towards the bottom https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/information/secondary-evidence.html

    2. The residency requirement is lifetime, not the years immediately preceding the birth. Mrs Cruz was born in 1932 and left the US in 1960, which is 28 years. More than sufficient.

    3. Canada has no control over US citizenship law. Under Canadian law, Cruz was born a citizen of Canada. Under US law, he was born a citizen of the US. His renunciation of Canadian citizenship was his choice and had no effect on his US citizenship. It was done 100% for political reasons.

    i will leave the rest of your nonsense for others to refute.

  8. avatar
    Dave B. March 23, 2016 at 8:45 pm #

    Man, that’s a mess. Where to start, indeed.

    “…at the time these acts were written a woman with U.S. citizenship who had a child born abroad could not confer her U.S. citizenship onto her child – it could ONLY descend through the father.”
    That was definitely the effect of the 1855 act, but not necessarily any act prior to that one.

    “Additionally, ‘children born abroad’ is regulated under the U.S. Immigration and “Naturalization” Act which does NOT confer natural-born status on those children.”
    Uh, that’s the Immigration and “Nationality” Act. Kind of blunts that “point,” doesn’t it?

    “U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now, upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child’s citizenship status.”
    There was not, and is not, any such requirement.

    “If it is determined that the child can hold U.S. Citizenship a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. Passport would/will be issued to the parents who MUST ALSO RENOUNCE THE child’s Canadian (or other country’s) citizenship AT THE SAME TIME.”
    There was, and is, no such requirement to renounce. While a parent could naturalize outside Canada and cause a child to lose Canadian citizenship (subject to resumption within one year after reaching the age of 21 years), a parent couldn’t renounce a child’s Canadian citizenship.

    “Cruz has NOT produced his Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a very important document as it would clearly state that he held U.S. Citizenship, however he would only be a ‘naturalized’ citizen as it is again, governed under the Immigration & Naturalization Act, which ‘grant’s citizenship – you are NOT automatically ‘born’ with it, nor is it descended upon the child from the parent.”
    A CRBA is a purely optional proof-of-citizenship document and is not a requirement of citizenship. If you’re naturalized, you CAN’T GET ONE. You get one because you ARE “automatically ‘born’ with it.” Duh.

    “Additionally, Canada did NOT recognize Dual Citizenship. Canadian officials say he is/was (since renounced) a ‘natural born Canadian citizen’ and nothing else. Since the U.S. did recognize dual citizenship, and per the granting of U.S. citizen status by the Consulate he would also have to, at age 18, go through the Naturalization process, renounce his Canadian Citizenship and take an oath of allegiance to the U.S.”
    That’s just a load of crap. Canada didn’t limit dual citizenship acquired at birth by persons born in Canada or on a Canadian ship. A US consulate can’t “grant” U.S. citizen status. The State Department can’t make anybody a US citizen; the State Department only has the responsibility of determining if someone already IS a US citizen. There’s no “Naturalization process” for persons who acquire US citizenship at birth.

    CH: Part 1 – Ted Cruz and his ‘naturalized’ citizenship – A History Lesson

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2016 at 9:22 pm #

    Several points there.

    First, US Nationality Law is not the same today as it was in 1970 when Ted Cruz was born. Significantly, today’s law reflects amendment by the Child Citizenship Act of 2001.

    Clearly under 8 U.S.C. 1401, children such as Ted Cruz are citizens at birth, and so there is no possibility for some subsequent action to be necessary for them to become citizens; they are already citizens.

    8 U.S.C. 1431 has some language today about automatic acquisition of citizenship, but that statute in 1970 only applied to naturalized citizen parents–and at no time did it apply to children who were citizens at birth.

    CH: U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now, upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child’s citizenship status.

  10. avatar
    y_p_w March 24, 2016 at 1:12 am #

    Dave B.:
    That’s just a load of crap.Canada didn’t limit dual citizenship acquired at birth by persons born in Canada or on a Canadian ship.A US consulate can’t “grant” U.S. citizen status.The State Department can’t make anybody a US citizen; the State Department only has the responsibility of determining if someone already IS a US citizen.There’s no “Naturalization process” for persons who acquire US citizenship at birth.

    Currently the USCIS (formerly INS) is the instrument for acquisition of US citizenship after birth, whether it’s by an adult naturalizing or derivative citizenship when a parent naturalizes. However, they occasionally document US citizenship at birth via a Certificate of Citizenship.

    Of course one of the State Department’s responsibilities is to document US citizenship, whether it’s via issuance of a CRBA or simply a passport based on secondary proof of citizenship.

  11. avatar
    Lupin March 24, 2016 at 3:39 am #

    CH: and only grants the ‘status of citizen’ NOT natural born to children born abroad to U.S.citizens (again plural).

    Are you a native English-speaker?

    Because if you were, surely you would recognize that, grammatically, a plural is necessary for citizen if you use a plural for child/ren.

    For example: “Only CHILDREN whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the Club may use the pool.”

    In no way, shape or form, this means that there must be several children, two parents, or several members in order for the clause to be valid.

    If you don’t understand English very well, I can dumb it down more for you?

  12. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 24, 2016 at 5:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Clearly under 8 U.S.C. 1401, children such as Ted Cruz are citizens at birth, and so there is no possibility for some subsequent action to be necessary for them to become citizens; they are already citizens.

    The other day I had a (still ongoing) discussion with arch-birther borderraven who claimed that although 8 USC 1401 confers citizenship at birth to certain individuals, 1431 and 1433 somehow still require those citizens at birth to jump through hoops to remain/become again (?) citizens.
    (I use “discussion” broadly since he does not actually make any arguments but keeps reiterating his claim in true “it is so because I say so” fashion.)

  13. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 24, 2016 at 5:31 am #

    Lupin: For example: “Only CHILDREN whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the Club may use the pool.”

    Or, even better:

    “Only OWNERS of TICKETS to the FINALS may enter here” – does that mean only two or more owners can enter together, and only if they each own at least two tickets to every final game? To a Vattelist, it does.

  14. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 24, 2016 at 5:36 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: 8 U.S.C. 1431 has some language today about automatic acquisition of citizenship, but that statute in 1970 only applied to naturalized citizen parents–and at no time did it apply to children who were citizens at birth.

    As I told borderraven a sufficient condition is not always a necessary one.
    If 1401 makes cats citizens at birth and 1431 makes animals citizens if they swim across Lake Michigan, cats don’t have to swim the lake but dogs do.
    The deluded birther thinks because 1431 also applies to cats, they somehow lose the things granted to them by 1401 (although 1431 says “if”, not “if and only if”). Elementary logic fail.

  15. avatar
    Scientist March 24, 2016 at 7:46 am #

    CH: Additionally, there is a documented report that Cruz’s parents voted in the 1974 Canadian Federal elections as Canadian citizens. This document can be found in Canadian government online searches.

    There is no documentation that they voted; their name appears on a list of those enrolled to vote. We don’t know that they actually did vote. Moreover, that list was from 1974 and thus doesn’t necessarily apply to 1970, when Ted was born. A couple of important points:

    1. Unlike the US, Canada doesn’t have voter registration. Elections Canada, a civil service agency, compiles voter roles which are published. In those days, paper lists were posted on utility poles in the neighborhood; today it’s done on line. If your name should be on the list. but isn’t, you contact them. If your name is on the list but shouldn’t be,, you could contact them, but most people don’t bother. Just don’t go vote and nothing happens.

    Back then, the lists were compiled for each election. Being a parliamentary system, the elections had no fixed dates, so there was typically only a month or so between when an election was called and when it happened (yes, US 2 year election campaigns are not the only way to choose decent leaders). Enumerators went house-to-house and asked how many citizens over 18 lived in each one. Sometimes people weren’t home, so they asked neighbors who lived there and wrote them down.

    The important point is that those lists frequently had errors, so appearing on one is not definitive that the person was a citizen.

    2. Naturalizing in Canada would not cause loss of US citizenship. The US State Dept’s position is that naturalizing in another country does not result in loss of US citizenship. Only a formal renunciation at a US Embassy or Consulate does. So unless you have evidence that Mrs. Cruz renounced prior to 1970, she was a US citizen, whether or not she was also Canadian.

  16. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 24, 2016 at 9:21 am #

    The voter poll on which Cruz’s parents names appeared, does not mean they voted. The voter polls, according to a Canadian I know who should know, is done shortly before each election, and is a rough canvas of an area for people’s names. they don’t check citizenship, so if they were living in a given district at the time the would probably have ended up on the poll if anyone knew they were living there. So unless there is an actual record of someone actually voting, it means nothing.

  17. avatar
    Thrifty March 24, 2016 at 10:41 am #

    CH you seem to be vigorously using the words of John Bingham to support your viewpoint. Except, as you pointed out, this was during debate. Debate is legislators expressing opinions to convince others how to vote. It’s not the actual legislation. It carries no legal weight.

  18. avatar
    Dave B. March 24, 2016 at 11:57 am #

    Did he show you his “OPENL ETTER TO TED C RUZ”?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/304261746/Open-Letter-to-Ted-Cruz

    “To be fair, I admire your qualifications a nd had pegged you as a Vice President under Donald Tr ump, but on my r esearch I find you p ossibly usu rped you r US Senate o ffice. But, our Congress h as b een so ineptly m anaged there is l ittle doubt it has b een infiltrated by h ostile agents. I call on the FBI to investigate.”

    And then (drumroll, please)…

    “Let’s se e if I can help you unravel the mess o f laws yo u’re a caught up in.”

    The Magic M (not logged in): The other day I had a (still ongoing) discussion with arch-birther borderraven who claimed that although 8 USC 1401 confers citizenship at birth to certain individuals, 1431 and 1433 somehow still require those citizens at birth to jump through hoops to remain/become again (?) citizens.
    (I use “discussion” broadly since he does not actually make any arguments but keeps reiterating his claim in true “it is so because I say so” fashion.)

  19. avatar
    Rickey March 24, 2016 at 12:47 pm #

    The appeal has been denied. The challenge was filed late, so no need to address the merits.

    http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Appeals-court-rejects-challenge-to-Cruz-s-birth-7015677.php

  20. avatar
    Scientist March 24, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

    Rickey: The appeal has been denied. The challenge was filed late, so no need to address the merits.

    How is it that the birthers believe this is so critically important that the very future of the Republic depends on this, yet they can’t file a timely challenge? Instead of the Minute Men, they are the Too Late Gang.

  21. avatar
    Dave B. March 24, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    I got this one from some “Jack Parsons” guy:

    “Senator Edward Cowan, author of the 14th Amendment, “A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…””

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thenewamericanmagazine/congressional_report_examines_cruzs_natural_born_citizen_status/#comment-2498214837

    Which is actually from Senator Edgar Cowan, from his remarks AGAINST the 14th Amendment. Cowan went on to vote against the proposed amendment, which kind of undercuts his authority on the intent of the law. That reference, as best I can tell, originates here:

    http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

    with a distortion of what Cowan actually said (in the right-hand column):

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

    “If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.”

    Well, duh.

    Thrifty:
    CH you seem to be vigorously using the words of John Bingham to support your viewpoint.Except, as you pointed out, this was during debate.Debate is legislators expressing opinions to convince others how to vote.It’s not the actual legislation.It carries no legal weight.

  22. avatar
    Thrifty March 24, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    Yes it’s absolutely baffling. Understanding the law is difficult. It takes years and years of college and graduate level study.

    But telling time and reading dates…. they teach you that in Kindergarten….

    Scientist: How is it that the birthers believe this is so critically important that the very future of the Republic depends on this, yet they can’t file a timely challenge?Instead of the Minute Men, they are the Too Late Gang.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater March 24, 2016 at 2:38 pm #

    Dave B.: I got this one from some “Jack Parsons” guy:

    Lol yep I’ve been dealing with that guy He’s an absolute moron