The Constitutional Difference between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (expanded)

~of donkeys & zebras, albinos and natural born citizens~

Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power… to establish an uniform rule of naturalization;…”

That was all that Congress could do regarding the assignment of citizenship, -to formulate a nation-wide rule by which a foreign man could be changed into a new “natural citizen” of his State (natural-izing him) via the process of the State and his own actions (registration and honestly speaking the transformative, life-changing oath of Renunciation & Allegiance).

It was the individual States and their individual naturalization rules that needed to be made “uniform”. The first naturalization act of Congress did that. The State Courts of Record then followed the new national uniform rule in their process of allowing foreign men to remake themselves into new State citizens and, as a collateral effect, into American (United States) citizens by extension.
But government does not “make” new citizens apart from a mass-naturalization proclamation such as that passed on behalf of the Amer-Asian Vietnamese children and their mothers and siblings who managed to escape from Vietnam, along with the other “boat people”. But that authority was not given to Congress by the Constitution. It was self-asserted by Congress out of “necessity”.
The natural status of being a natural member of one’s own group and society (via member parents) and a natural member of one’s own nation is not a privilege “bestowed” on one by government in order to make one that which they were in fact born already being.

No creature or object needs to be “made” that which it already is. Government can no more “make” a natural citizen than it can make a natural eagle. Eagles make eagles and zebras make zebras just as citizens make citizens. For alpha-male zebras in a zebra herd to accept a donkey as a zebra, the donkey must first paint himself with zebra stripes, making himself into a faux, legal-fiction-natural zebra. Same with foreigners, and children of hybrid marriages involving two nations.

In our current political situation, Marco Rubio is not a faux natural zebra, but his parents were after they had become natural-ized. But if he had been born before that time, then he too would have taken on his parents faux-natural American political identity. Since he was born before they became Americans, he was born as a painted donkey who was accepted as a member of the zebra herd “as is” (as a common law 14th Amendment citizen).

But what is the rule of the herd? Only a true natural zebra is allowed to lead the herd. Certainly no member born as a donkey is eligible since such a one was not innately a natural member of the group by birth.
And what of Ted Cruz? Ted was not born of a donkey father and a zebra mother, but only of a zebra mother. How so? His father contributed no nationality to their son since he had none of his own to contribute. He was a man with a country but without a nation.

What’s the difference? A country is a land and its people. A nation is the people and their government. An “Indian nation” is not defined by land occupied. The country designation is secondary and can be splintered by the people and government fleeing the land, -as happened with the country & nation of Kuwait when it was invaded by the army of Saddam Hussein.The nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait, leaving it in the hands of the invading, looting army.

The father of Ted Cruz was of the country of Cuba but not of the nation of Castro’s Communist government and socialist constitution. Therefore he was not a citizen of such a nation nor subject to such a government. He was stateless, -not unlike Gypsies, or the Children of Israel after they left Egypt. They were no longer subjects of Pharaoh but had no country of their own yet, being desert nomads for forty years.
One could have labeled them as Egyptians since their forefathers had lived in Egypt for about four centuries, but they were not ethnically Egyptian. Similarly, Rafael Cruz Sr. was ethnically Cuban but not politically Cuban nor subject to the new Cuban revolutionary Communist government which overthrew his government. A similar dichotomy.

The consequence of having a stateless father was that all of Ted’s political or nationality “genes” came from his mother who had “American genes” only.
It is as if Ted was born as an albino zebra. Pure white. The black strips (representing the contribution of the father) were missing. Analogous to a virgin birth. You could say that he was a natural zebra but a very rare type; an abnormal natural born white zebra.

Such an albino is definitely a zebra just as Ted is definitely American, but to be non-eligible one must be something else also, namely something foreign, yet there is no foreign allegiance in Ted’s inherited political character since the only such character he inherited came from his mother. His father had no allegiance to Castro and his Communist government. His only allegiance was a theoretical allegiance to Canada after becoming a Canadian citizen after Ted was already living. So that had no effect on him at birth.

So the claim that Ted was Canadian by birth is absurd because it is profoundly ambiguous. Was he innately Canadian by birth? Was he born of Canadian blood? Did he have Canadian ancestors? Were his parents naturalized Canadian citizens at the time of his birth? They could not have been because the required residency was five years but Ted was born a least a year before eligibility. Bear in mind that “Canadian by birth” is distinctly different from “Canadian by birth place”. The former is based on blood, while the latter is based on borders. So he was born of an American citizen and no other citizen.

It’s like a fertilized human egg. It is innately female by nature, containing an X chromosome, but to form a male human, the Y chromosome must be contributed by a male’s sperm which is programmed for maleness. A stateless father is like a sperm that contributes nothing to the egg’s gender character, -no Y chromosome of foreignness so the child is innately only that which the mother contributes.

Those whose view of the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ comes from anything other than the principle of natural membership hit a wall of confusion when confronted with the hypothetical situation of a Ted Cruz fathered by a native of Antarctica (none exist). Antarctica is not owned by any nation and has no sovereignty of its own. Such a native would belong to no state and no people other than the mother’s people and nation. Such a native father and such an un-owned land can’t imbue a child with foreignness or alienage, being analogous to a political albino, or birth in outer space.

Neither by birth place nor parentage would such a child be foreign. An American mother of such a child would be the only parent to contribute national identity to their child. It would be 100% what she is since there is nothing else.
That is the sort of citizen that Ted Cruz is. Atypical, not contemplated by American law, the rarest of the rare. The naturalization statute regarding foreign birth to an American mother and a non-American father sees their child as a citizen by legal right -not by natural right or constitutional right. It is a “right” bestowed by Congress to give American mothers the same right that American fathers had always had.

When the nation was founded, and for over a century afterward, no such language of two nationalities was used nor contemplated because the described circumstance was impossible.
All women of that era were identified by their husband’s nationality, not their father’s. If he was foreign, then so were they because they were what he was, legally, socially, religiously, and by surname. No American husband had a foreign wife and no foreigner had an American wife. Nationality within marriage was uniform, unitary, a single source, undivided. In fact, in the naturalization act of 1907, American women who married a foreign man were openly identified as having lost their American citizenship. (That was the law for 15 years.)

But the current naturalization language, and all those deceived by it, state a fact that is innately erroneous and yet not an outright falsehood. It uses foggy language, including: “children born aboard of American parents…”.
No one in the world can tell you exactly what that means because it means exactly nothing. Is it referring to only the children of American couples? -or to children of foreign parents and individual American “parents” in aggregate?
There is no answer given nor is the question even ever asked because it never enters the minds of people since it is devoid of any significance, unless… such a child one day decides to try to become the President.

Since the difference determines who is eligible to be President and who is not, -no one in government dares to go there (it’s too touchy a subject), and so it is avoided completely. Should a politician follow the obvious principle of natural law?… -or support a position that is politically most expedient (and denies natural law)?
Are foreign-born children of American couples “natural born citizens” as our forefathers declared them to be in the first Congress? If they are, then they are that because of American blood, and not American soil. Blood or borders… parentage or place… sanguinity or soil… -jus sanguinis or jus soli? It can’t be both. It is one or the other since they have nothing in common.

If it is the other (soil…native-birth) that makes one a natural born citizen“, then that would make natural American children not born within U.S. borders aliens by birth, -not Americans by birth. That would mean that they not only have no right to serve their nation as its President, but they have no natural right whatsoever to even be Americans, -to be members of their family’s national group, thus making them foreigners to their own parents and siblings. Did the founding fathers concoct such an insane system for us?

They certainly did not, and that is seen in the first naturalization act (1790) which ordered that they be recognized as the natural born citizens that they were born as. That meant that they were eligible to serve as President. It meant nothing else since nothing else in American life and citizenship is related to natural citizenship.

That order in the act was to protect them from the nativist, common law adherents in the States that held native-birth to be supreme as it had been under British rule. Some of them would have been election ballot officials with the authority to block a foreign-born American from running for the presidency were it not for the specific language that identified them as being natural born citizens fully in conformity with the Constitution’s requirement.
It also mentioned: ~the RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP by DESCENT. That referred to the natural right of national membership based on blood inheritance.
But labeling foreign-born American children “natural born citizens” could not be allowed to stand because it destroyed the right of the alien-born in America to serve as President, i.e., -the native-born children of foreigners, non-Americans, who had no natural right to citizenship much less to serve as the Commander-in-Chief.
So a whole lot of immigrant voters got Congress to drop that mention of “natural born citizen”, leaving its only other mention in American law being that in the Constitution.
But it is clear in the government citizenship website prepared for the public that the vague reference to foreign-born children (“of American parents”) is in relationship only to the limited subject of “citizenship” (-not “natural born” status).
Yet it states in emphatic terms that the foreign-born children of American couples are NOT naturalized, thereby making a distinction between them and those with a foreign parent.
Deduce your own deduction. Does that not mean that they are naturally natural citizens of the United States? Since Congress can only “make” legal citizens via naturalization, that only leaves natural citizenship via the principle of natural membership.

Because Congress dropped the identification of foreign-born American children as “natural born citizens” in the revised act of 1795, two huge confusions resulted. One was the question of exactly who is and who is not a natural born citizen, accompanied by the question of who is and is not eligible to be President.
One side (the State side) obliterated the clear and inescapable distinction between the citizen-fathered and the native-but alien-fathered, -being unwilling to write-off vast numbers of patriotic native-born American sons from being eligible to ever be President.
That position and attitude was the result of the colonial history under the artificial British rule of nationality & subjection to the Crown being based on native-birth to subject parents (including foreigners).

That British bastardization plowed under the natural principle of natural national membership. In its place was created a new classification for national identification, one based not on birth to members of the nation but merely birth within their borders. Thus there appeared the distinction of being one of “America’s native-born sons” (regardless of who the father was, including possibly being a loyal royalist, -or a loyal noble or aristocrat of the monarchy-supporting system).

The consequence of State governments retaining the grant of citizenship to all native-born children of their immigrants was that three systems of State citizenship existed side-by-side but with only two of them being written into law in order to make them a recognized rule. The other system, natural citizenship, was not written into law because it didn’t need to be since it was naturally automatic.
But that also made it invisible, -just like numerous other natural rights, including the right to have children and to be a parent and to own your own children. Those rights were never written into law either because they also were understood to be natural, automatic, and unalienable.

Another consequence was that the alien-born male citizen children were also subjects of their foreign parents’ foreign government which may have had mandatory national military service as an inescapable natural and legal obligation, thus making those sons subject to obligations to another nation besides the United States.
That resulted in the conundrum of dual-citizenship, dual obligation, and possibly dual-allegiance. Such a person with such a divided loyalty was meant by the founders and authors of the Constitution to never be allowed to take the reins of power wielded by the Commander-in-Chief. They specifically barred the native-born sons of foreigners from serving as President by requiring that he be a “natural born citizen” and not merely a native-born citizen.
So the States had three ways to be a citizen: 1. birth to citizens, 2. Naturalization, and 3. native-birth, but the new central government only had two, -rejecting native-birth and the dual-nationality, dual-obligation, and dual-allegiance that came with it. With that as their starting position, it is not surprising that they sought to protect the eligibility rights of foreign-born American sons, including their own.

The result of that divergence was national confusion when it came to the basis of citizenship and presidential eligibility. The States saw it one way and the national government, which had to deal with international relationships, saw it another, and did not recognize the citizenship of children of immigrants until they became Americans. This confusion is revealed in the comments made by Senator Howard as the proposed 14th Amendment citizenship clause was under discussion:

Mr. HOWARD: “I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside”.
I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law (the Civil Rights Act of 1866), 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 in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

De·sid·er·a·tum: requirement, need, deficiency

Why did that great desideratum exist? Because of the confusion and conflict caused by two different systems of government (State vs Federal) and their competing rules for citizenship.
Senator Howard presumptuously declared that confusion would end with the wording of the 14th Amendment upon its adoption, but he failed to consider that while that was true regarding the native-born, it certainly was not true regarding the foreign-born because the declaration of citizenship for the native-born was as clear as mud since it failed to identify who is and isn’t born subject to the “the United States and their jurisdiction”.

The nativists, or native-born supporters incorrectly assumed that being born within the jurisdiction (aka; the territory) necessarily also meant being born subject to the jurisdiction (aka; the authority) when that was false since invaders, marauders, rebels, Gypsies, and foreign visitors or guests are not subject to government, while foreign-born, and even raised, sons of Americans are subject to American jurisdiction and must register with the Selective Service at 18 years of age.

But lacking that realization, the nativists could thereby cloak themselves in the Red, White, & Blue of native-birth and from atop their All-American high horse declare that all Americans born over the border or over the sea were therefore aliens, foreigners!
Consequently, the misimpression arose that the wording of the 14th Amendment, which applied to slaves (and could be construed to apply to children of immigrant foreigners) applied to ALL persons, -when in fact it only addressed those born in the United States and no others.

That mistake obscures not only the issue of the citizenship of foreign-born Americans but also the very nature of natural citizenship itself, with their nativist view asserting that natural citizenship does not even exist.
Rather, in their deceived view, ALL citizenship is government citizenship. No one has any right of citizenship even if their American ancestors go back to the Mayflower or the Declaration of Independence. Their children are citizens only because the government says so via its written and passed laws.
That means that NO ONE has any natural right to be a member of their own parents’ nation. And that view and position is treasonous to the fundamental sovereign right of all American couples to pass their national membership on to their progeny who will in time replace them.

Either all American couples have that right or only the government has that right. So who is the one true sovereign in America: the government? -or The People? The People have the right to their parents’ citizenship and the right to share their natural national membership with alien-born children born in their country, -and they have done so via State laws and the 14th Amendment, but no one has any natural right to the citizenship that they bestow.
Rather, it is the gift of a beneficent people. Not all peoples have adopted such an attitude and such a law. The Japanese people have never accepted the native-born Korean people among them, -even to the present- day third generation. They remain Korean just like their parents who have not become natural-ized members of Japanese society.
They must become Japanese in order to become citizens of Japan. No exceptions. Native-birth means absolutely nothing going back to the first generation born of those Koreans brought to Japan as slaves during WWII.

That is what real natural-ization looks like, and used to look like in America when a foreign man would look a state magistrate in the eyes and swearing on a Holy Bible take the life-changing oath of RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE, thereby transforming himself into a new “born citizen” of the United States (by legal fiction).
But not being a natural born citizen”, he is not eligible to serve as President, nor are any children born to him before he became an American because they also were not born as natural American citizens. That describes Marco Rubio, but does not describe Ted Cruz.

by Adrien Nash Jan. 2016 obama–

In PDF format, two column, 5 pages; The Constitutional Difference between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

7 Responses to The Constitutional Difference between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (expanded)

  1. slcraignbc says:

    Still you can not see the forest for the trees.

    In order for there to be a “natural born citizen” their MUST be the provision to acknowledge that a child born of citizen parents would be considered as such.

    [That is incorrect for two reasons. 1. No provision is needed in order for natural membership to exist. It exists even in the absence of law. It pre-dates law and is superior to law because it is natural and automatic. 2. The term “natural born citizen” is synonymous with natural member of a nation. It is NOT a legal term of artifice which you treasonously declare it to be. It is plain English not in need of interpreting as a legal term.]

    The ESTABLISHED uniform Rule of naturalization in the 1790 Act provides for the RIGHT of Citizenship as a feature of a persons’ US Citizenship.

    [That is incorrect. The Act provides only a uniform rule of naturalization. No Act provides any right of any kind. Government cannot provide RIGHTS. They are provided by Nature and Nature’s God. See:
    Citizenship is owned by the citizen and like a property right, it can be passed on to one’s progeny without need of government permission as long as both parents are citizens of one nation.]

    There is NO jus soli or sanguinis in US Citizenship only the RIGHT of Citizenship that comes with US Citizenship, however acquired.

    [That is self-contradictory. The RIGHT of citizenship by DESCENT is a right that is sanguinity based since descent is nothing other than the passing on from one generation to the next in one blood line.]

    The Founding Generation received its Right of Citizenship by the Ratification of the Constitution and from 1790 to 1922 a US natural born Citizen acquired their US Citizenship from their US Citizen father, providing that the mother was the wife of the US Citizen father.

    [And with that blind statement it becomes clear that you did not even read the exposition that you are supposedly responding to. You are a fraud. The founding generation received their citizenship from the State in which they are born and raised, or in which they became a new immigrant citizen.
    All natural born colonial subjects became State citizens upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence if they had adhered to the revolution in word and deed and not remained loyal to the Crown.
    The Constitution had no effect on citizenship whatsoever. In the new union under the Constitution, all state citizens were also citizens of the aggregate nation.]

    The Constitution IS statutory in its construction and once ratified the term of words, “natural born citizen” became statutory by the LEGAL nature for which it was used.
    [but that does not mean that they changed in nature from being plain English to being artificial legal fiction.]

    There is no extra constitutional authority that manifests a citizenship status at will while ignoring the FACT that the identified “attendant circumstances” are the means of identifying that manifestation.

    The 1790 Act stood as the Law of the Land for five (5) years with the children born anywhere in the world to the wife of a US Citizen father being US natural born Citizens and not otherwise.

    The 1795 Act served only to “limit” where a US natural born Citizen shall be born.

    [See folks! THAT is the treason of which I wrote! Congress, he traitorously proclaims, was imbued with the authority to strip sovereign American citizens of the natural RIGHT to pass their national membership on to their progeny. And where in the Constitution is Congress given such an unlimited power? No where.

    Notice he put “limit” in quotation marks, but he is quoting no one and no thing. Such authority only exists in his nativist imagination. Even worse, he totally misconstrues the words and intent and meaning of the wording of the 1795 act, which I explained in my exposition.]

    The 1922 Cable Act abrogated the doctrine of matrimonial coverture and loosed the bonds of marriage of citizen parents, but did not and could not, short of an Amendment, loose the requirement of both parents being US Citizens.
    [-which has nothing at all to do with birth place. It has only to do with blood; American blood and foreign blood. That does not support his fantasy that native-birth is an element of natural citizenship.]

    This proposition of Law is reviewable by the SCOTUS while your conception is NOT.

    I know because I’ve been there, done THAT.

    [apparently, what you think you “know” is that which you actually do NOT know. And when did you become an expert on what SCOTUS is incapable of reviewing? Gee, and I thought that that was up to them to decide according to their own rule of what cases they will hear and what cases they won’t. But you got one thing right; your fantasy definitely is a “proposition” (and not a fact).
    You called the facts that I pointed out a “conception”, and yet since they are in fact the truth, you could not and did not counter my statements, quote them, nor analyze them, and that is because you did not read them, and you prefer not to because you have no answer to their truth. And you never will. But you don’t care because you are happily married to your false dogma.]

  2. arnash says:

    My responses to slcraignbc are inserted into his comment.

  3. slcraignbc says:

    The stated FACTS that I assembled that identify the STATUTORY expressions of the requisite ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES to be identified as a US natural born Citizen as ESTABLISHED in 1790 and as affected by subsequent Acts can ONLY be called a PROPOSITION unless and until it is adjudicated on its merits and DECLARED in JUDGEMENT as CONSTITUTIONAL FACT of LAW or not.

    But then, obviously you did not read or comprehend what I have written due to your myopic mindset.

  4. arnash says:

    Your never-ending error is in the baseless belief that the meaning of the words was ESTABLISHED by an act of *government* when in fact it is defined by the English language alone, just as is natural born child or natural born leader. A born leader = a natural leader. A citizen by birth is a natural citizen. A natural citizen is one born being a citizen by natural inheritance of their parents’ national membership.
    You cannot dispute that fact but you sure can obfuscate it.

    Your other huge presumptuous error is in the false belief that subsequent Nat Acts changed anything. They changed nothing. All natural born citizens are citizens of the United States. All Navy Seals are also “Sailors”. Calling a SEAL a Sailor does NOT mean he is no longer a SEAL.

    Only a moron would argue otherwise, as you are doing. All the later acts did was to remove the issue of natural citizenship and presidential eligibility from naturalization acts. That left the issue to everyone’s imagination, which is what was preferred since the result was that hundred of thousands of American native-born sons of foreigners would no longer be considered ineligible to serve as President, even though none of them ever ran for that office. At least they could dream, and that was what mattered. “Everyone can be President!!” -an ignorant delusion.

    • slcraignbc says:

      You say; ” … You cannot dispute that fact but you sure can obfuscate it. … ” which is an obfuscation by convolution its-self.

      1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

      2) And 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:

      3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

      right of citizenship right of citizenship right of citizenship right of citizenship right of citizenship

      an uniform Rule an uniform Rule an uniform Rule an uniform Rule an uniform Rule


      Dispute THAT.

  5. arnash says:

    You quack! When you say “right of citizenship” what you actually mean is “right of citizenship by a government grant of said right”.
    RIGHTS are NOT dispensed by government! They are inborn in every human being, one of which is the natural right of belonging, -of family membership, -of social membership, and of national membership.
    It is not ‘given’ by government. Dispute THAT! Actually, that is all that you have been doing in all of your comments, but in a stealth manner, raising legal statutes to the same everlasting statue as natural rights. Holding that view is treasonous to fundamental American Organic Law, -the very principles of individual sovereign human rights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: