July 9, 2015 2 Comments
As to the presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz…
“Eleanor Cruz was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth.”
As a point of information, it’s really quite difficult to renounce your US citizenship. You have to go to a US embassy and make a fuss. You don’t in any way endanger it by taking up a second passport [via foreign citizenship].
The Cruz campaign told Breitbart News on Friday that Cruz’s American-born mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson (née Darragh), had never done so.
“She was in Canada on a work permit and never became a permanent resident, let alone a citizen,” Johnson said.
Well folks, there you have it, at last. Proof that Ted’s father was NOT a Canadian citizen when Ted was born because he had not lived long enough in Canada to be eligible.
That means that Ted inherited only his mother’s political character, -meaning her nationality, because his father was a stateless person since the nation of his citizenship had disintegrated under the revolution of the Castro forces.
He was not present in Cuba then nor did he ever become a citizen of Castro’s Communist dictatorship even if it would have accepted him as a citizen.
So he was a man without a nationality since the government of Cuba was not his government. He owed it no allegiance whatsoever. He was STATELESS. Thus he passed no inherited foreign nationality to his son, avoiding having fathered a son who by birth was a citizen of a foreign nation by blood connection, or right of descent. That permanent right as a former member of Cuban society would have allowed him to be considered as a Cuban citizen by the Castro government, but it is not derived from government. It is instead directly connected not to government but to society.
Rafael Cruz Sr. was a natural member of Cuban society and thus a natural born Cuban, but membership in a society is not the same as citizenship under a government. One is a natural member of their parents’ society, aka; country, but that is separate from, albeit intimately linked to, being a citizen of a nation. So he was a natural born Cuban but not a natural born citizen of Communist Cuba since he was not a Cuban citizen at all.
Governments of nations categorize all natural members of their society as citizens of the nation, but if the government came into being via an illegal revolution, then that government has no legitimate power over those who reject its legitimacy, especially if they are not living in their country during that time.
Although they remain natural members of their country, they can and do reject, as did the American revolutionaries, their chains to the government which they consider illegitimate. So if Rafael Cruz Sr. rejected subjection to Castro’s Communist government, then he was rejecting its citizenship in effect. You could say he was self-expatriated.
That means his son was purely American by natural political inheritance and was not born under an umbrella of foreign-government allegiance inherited from a foreign-citizen father. That means that he is the rarest of natural born citizens, just as rare as Obama who was the rarest of all pseudo-citizens, (an “almost-a-citizen”, -but not quite since his father was not an immigrant).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Slartibartfast: “It doesn’t matter what you think or Canada thinks or your sky daddy thinks or Rafael thinks or his papa thinks or the SCOTUS thinks or any other stupid condition you’ve made up out of whole cloth, it just matters WHAT CUBA THINKS. If Cuba thought daddy Cruz was their citizen, then he was. “
Wow! You’ve dug a really deep hole with that one and then buried yourself in it. It surely does not matter what you think, but what SCOTUS thinks? [You really said that? Heresy! All Hail SCOTUS!]
The Cuban Constitution reveals that they have adopted entirely the American position of voluntary self-expatriation as an unalienable right. That is their embrace of the principle of freedom of identity and national association. So how do you misconstrue the Cruz application for asylum in the U.S. as anything other than a clear expression of self-expatriation?
But even aside from that, if you had more than three brain cells you would be cognizant of the fact that you cannot be “claimed” by any country in the world and have that claim recognized by the international law of nations without a legitimate basis for it. Can North Korea claim your children as citizens if they happened to visit their soil? Is what they think all that matters?
It’s an international reality that Cruz Sr. was a man without citizenship because his Cuban citizenship ceased when his government and the nation that it formed vanished. A similar thing happened three thousand years ago when the volcanic island of Santorini exploded. Thera, the nation living on it, ceased to exist, physically. It’s citizens who survived while away were no longer its citizens because it didn’t exist. They were stateless.
If your wife vanished into thin air, could someone say you are still married to her? There is no more “her”. She no longer exists. Your marriage is over. You are single again. See that? That is what reality looks like. Same with nationality. That is the story regarding the Batista Cuba.
Its replacement had no authority over either father or son because Sr.’s nationality status ended with the rise to power of the Castro Communist government and its constitution. I’ll make it even clearer for you. Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait. The nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait.
Did all of those former Kuwaiti citizens become citizens of the new Iraqi Kuwait?
Since Cruz Sr. was not subject to a government that no longer existed, nor to one that came into being after he had fled, and to which he had no connection, obedience, loyalty, or allegiance, he was in fact a stateless person living in the U.S. as an asylum recipient. He therefore had no citizenship to contribute to his son when he was born since he was not yet a naturalized Canadian citizen.
His son was born before he had lived four years in Canada, but to become naturalized required a minimum of five years residency. Since his father did not become a naturalized Canadian citizen until after Ted was born, his son did not inherit Canadian citizenship through him and was not born as a dual citizen by blood since his father was still a stateless person when he was born.
Therefore the Cruz child only inherited the national membership of the mother by his blood connection to her as the only parent with a nationality that could naturally descend to their child. So instead of being a natural born citizen via two parents, he was one via only one, -just as if his father was deceased or unknown when he was born.
Being stateless is effectively no different because no second nationality was inherited by their child. Birth location, and any gift of citizenship resulting from it, is and was irrelevant to natural national membership.
Common law or native-birth citizenship is an artificial, border-determined national connection rooted in nothing more an a transient time-&-place event which no child in history has ever been capable of remembering or treasuring. It was just a remnant of a discarded system established for the benefit of British royal despots.
But if Cruz Sr. had been a Canadian citizen when Ted was born, then Ted could not be considered to be a natural born American citizen. But he could be recognized as being essentially the same as one, or better, because having his father’s experience of tyranny in his background made him someone even more staunchly defensive of Liberty and the Constitution than 99% of natural born citizens, including you and I.
~ ~ ~ ~
J.b. Williams: The NBC clause is the ONLY clause in the US Constitution that prevents unknown – undocumented – foreign agents from holding the Oval Office as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military on earth….. I recommend not screwing with what the Founders did to prevent foreign agents from holding the most powerful office in America, as evidenced by the first foreign agent in that office right now.
Adrien Nash: That would seem to be reasonable but in fact may be just the opposite because of the possibility of a “foreign agent” being more pro-American and pro-Constitution than the rest of us natural born citizens; -just the opposite side of the spectrum from Obama. Both are real-world possibilities.
But I want to point out that it is entirely true and accurate to defend the fact that natural citizenship by birth is due solely to inclusion in the nationality of one’s parents. That is citizenship by blood or right of descent. Native-birth is irrelevant to natural citizenship just as it is to family membership.
American couples produce an American child and where it is born is unimportant and produces zero allegiance to any foreign soil where birth happened to happen even when the nation of that soil gives its citizenship to every child born within it.
It is horribly false logic to erroneously conflate citizenship by right, by blood, by natural inheritance, with citizenship by gift of law based on mere place of birth, but that error continues to be made and promulgated.
If Ted Cruz had an American father at birth, then only the ignorant would be high-lighting the location of his birth or the British common law gift of Canadian citizenship that that location produced.
Why so? Because it would be totally irrelevant to his natural American citizenship. Canadian citizenship would be merely legal citizenship that is not by right of descent, and thus would produce no allegiance to the nation of a Canadian father since his father would not have been Canadian at his birth.
Also, one should not throw around the term “dual citizen” because it is innately ambiguous. What is the origin of the dual citizenship? Is it due to parents from two different nations? Or is it due to parents with each having dual citizenship? Or is it due to birth in a foreign nation that gives its citizenship to anyone and everyone born within its borders?
Allegiance does not result from the latter scenario, but only from being born AND RAISED in the land of one’s parents, or born elsewhere but indoctrinated to love and cherish the homeland of one’s parents.
Canada was NOT the homeland of Ted’s mother nor his father so any pretense that Ted was born or raised with any allegiance to Canada is utterly false.
You can’t have divided allegiance if you only have a single allegiance, and his single allegiance has always been to America, his homeland.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1. It is false that dual citizens have papers from both countries in cases where both parents have the same nationality, in particular, U.S. citizenship. No documents are needed for pure-blood American children because they are not naturalized citizens no matter where they are born. They are natural citizens by birth, and thus eligible to be President. It is stated for emphasis on a U.S. Government citizenship website that the children of American couples are NOT naturalized, meaning they are natural citizens by birth.
2. “Statutory citizenship” refers to all forms of citizenship determined by Congress, which excludes native-birth citizenship (via the 14th Amendment), natural citizenship, and personal naturalization by oath (which the government regulates but cannot grant). Statutory citizenship mostly covers the children of mixed-nationality marriages born abroad, (but NOT foreign born children of American couples). Such mixed-nationality children are deemed naturalized-at-birth.
3. Congress was charged with the responsibility of authoring a uniform rule for all of the States to follow regarding how they allowed foreigners to naturalize into State and U.S. citizens as well as who they allowed. That commission given to Congress had no connection to the issue of immigration (which was not even mentioned in the Constitution, remaining a State matter).
7. Everyone, almost, is presuming to conflate statutory citizenship with natural citizenship when they are entirely dissimilar, one being via natural inheritance and the other being for those with no right to citizenship but nevertheless given permission to be citizens by law.
Here’s a question everyone needs to answer for themselves:
If Ted Cruz was born of an unknown father, what would be the nature of his American citizenship? Natural? or statutory? Would the blood-based citizenship inherited from his mother be merely some legal product? Or a natural designation?
And this one as well:
If his father had been dead for several months when he was born, whose nationality would he have inherited? His mother’s only? If so, would her American citizenship somehow magically make him a statutory citizen instead of a natural citizen via inheritance of her citizenship?
Everyone needs to separate in their mind the two completely different forms of citizenship; natural vs legal; inherited vs gifted; membership by right vs membership by permission. Those with the latter form are not eligible to serve a Commander-in-Chief. Marco Rubio is an example of the latter.
by Adrien Nash 2015 obama–nation.com
PS. a topical Facebook comment of mine; rephrasing the same facts:
The most elemental feature of a natural born citizen is that they have inherited no foreign nationality from either parent. In 99.9% of cases that fact is attended by the fact that both parents are of the same nationality, but in extremely rare cases, that is not so. That exception to the rule is seen in the category of children of citizens whose fathers were either dead, unknown (due to rape or seduction by a stranger) or statelessness.
Here is the hair that you must split in order to arrive at the truth: the national identify of Ted’s father was not the same as his citizenship. He was socially and culturally Cuban, but that did NOT make him a Cuban citizen contributing a foreign national identity and allegiance to his son.
That is a fact because he was a stateless person whose government had ceased to exist, just as if it had been destroyed along with his country. But his country was not destroyed, leaving him as a natural member of Cuban society but not as a citizen of the new Communist Castro government.
He had no connection to that tyrannical regime and obtained asylum in order to never have to submit to it. That meant that he had become a stateless person.
A stateless person has no citizenship that his child can inherit since he has no government of his own. That left Ted without the usual foreign alienage that comes from a foreign parent, with the result that his naturally inherited American citizenship was his only inherited citizenship, making him (like the child of an unknown rapist or a deceased father) solely an American citizen by blood due to his American mother.
Therefore one can assert that he is not a normal natural born citizen by a long ways, but one cannot say that he is not a natural born citizen at all. He is the .01% or so.
by Adrien Nash January 2016 obama–nation.com