How Canadian is Ted Cruz?

[Sue U]

This has to be the most hilarious thing ever, from a super-PAC supporting Marco Rubio. Ostensibly about tax policy, the entire ad is designed to promote the idea that "Canadian-born Canadian Ted Cruz is a Canadian, from Canada" (thx, Wonkette!), and therefore too Canadian to be presidenting U.S. America which is NOT Canada, so maybe he should go to Canada where they love Canadian socialism and the maple leaf (of Canada):





And by the way also too, Ronald Reagan hates Ted Cruz, just like everyone else does.

Donald Trump approves this message.

[Long Run]

If Neil Young and Alex Trebek are at one end of the "welcome to the U.S." spectrum, Cruz is down in Justin Bieber territory on the other end.

[Lord Jim]

Chuck Todd pointed out on Morning Joe today that while the ad ties Cruz to Canada, in the scroll of countries the most prominent one is France....

"Ted Cruz...Hated by Ronald Reagan, loved by the French..."

[Beer Sponge]

Cruz is all yours America!! We don't want him!!!

[liberty]

Where was Cruz born? Why are people saying he born in Canada?

[BoSoxGal]

Uh, because HE says he was born in Canada?

[Econoline]

Where was Cruz born? Why are people saying he born in Canada?

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on December 22, 1970, to Eleanor Darragh, who was born in Delaware, and Rafael Cruz, who was born in Cuba. (The Cruzes were working for the oil industry at the time, and relocated to Houston, Texas, when Ted was 4.) He's clearly a U.S. *CITIZEN*...but is he a "natural born Citizen" as per the necessary qualifications for POTUS put forth in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution? Turns out that the definition of that term has never been legally and definitively settled.

[Guinevere]

Federal district courts have analyzed and opined on the question. In particular, I know the U.S. District Court in NH dismissed a case against John McCain finding he was a natural born citizen, and the U.S. District Court in Philly (I think) made the same ruling concerning President Obama. I'll look up the decisions and post the language here.

After reading the NH decision I was pretty comfortable that the issue was indeed settled, although that court's decisions don't have the same legal precedence as decisions from a Circuit Court of Appeals or SCOTUS. But what do I know, I'm not either TrumptyDump or Larry Tribe.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I don't think it has ever been settled. McCain of course was born in Panama to US parents on military duty and there was never any hint of an argument from Democrats that he was ineligible. The Constitution, if it means born within the 50 states (or however many there were at the time of the birth) - which is how it was interpreted by the Obama birthers at the time - has never made an exclusion for children of the military. George Romney who ran for the republican nomination in 1968 and lost to RMN was born to Mormon missionaries who had fled US "persecution" to Mexico, and his eligibility was never questioned. Goldwater was born in Arizona which was not then a state. Again, I don't recall any birther opposition to his run in 1964. The only ones questioning Cruz's birth are of course the same ones who brought up the question re Obama - Trump and his ilk.

I wish the Supremes would grab this one and settle it once and for all. Obviously (????) someone has to bring a case to them. Actually, and I would like to hear from our resident attorneys, is that true? Could the Supremes just take it on, on the grounds that it is lying around and needs an airing?

[Guinevere]

Andy, incorrect - there was a lawsuit against McCain in the federal district court in New Hampshire.

And no, SCOTUS does not give advisory opinions. Under constitutional jurisprudence there must be a case and controversy, and there must be standing to sue. In non-legalese, that means there has to be an actual legal disputes, capable of being remedied by the courts, and the party bringing the claim must allege they suffer a particularized "harm" to which the courts can fashion a remedy. Particularized means the harm suffered by the person bringing the claim is different than the harm suffered by the general public.

As I am writing this I remember more. I think the NH suit against McCain was dismissed because the court found the complainant did not suffer any particularized harm and thus had no standing to sue. Which is what would happen if any citizen brought such a claim. I also believe they did opine that McCain was a citizen based in his parents citizenship. I'll dig up the opinion later today.

Eta: Order in Hollander v McCain: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/li ... -24-08.pdf. Decision was not appealed to the First Circuit.

Pennsylvania case was Berg v. Obama which came to the same conclusion, as did the Third Circuit on appeal: http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/berg_ac_opinion.pdf

[ex-khobar Andy]

Thanks for the explanation about standing. A minor quibble - Hollander filed that suit in NH because he was (by his own description) a McCain supporter who wanted to forestall birther-type lawsuits. (Birther was not then a word.). Democrats did not IIRC raise it as an issue. It could be that the imposition of Palin on the world was all the disqualification most of us needed.

[Guinevere]

Andy, "incorrect" was simply with reference to the fact that there was an actual lawsuit against McCain. I don't recall Hollanders motivation.

[wesw]

yep. he lost me when he chose palin.

I was already worried tho. he was an angry man. his captivity damaged him, as it would damage anyone.

[Lord Jim]

he was an angry man.

[wesw]

yeah, I never watched the apprentice...

[Lord Jim]

Yeah, because the only time he's ever seemed remotely angry was on The Apprentice...

[wesw]

trump is the happiest warrior I have ever seen on the political stage.

it is his time.

give em hell, Donald.

[dales]

[MG McAnick]

George Romney who ran for the republican nomination in 1968 and lost to RMN was born to Mormon missionaries who had fled US "persecution" to Mexico

I don't think George Romney's parents were missionaries in the strictest sense, but they did live in a Mormon "colony" in Mexico at the time of his birth. It was partially due to religious persecution as the US government was not happy with some Mormon's polygamous ways, but it was also a nice place to live. I think George's father had only one wife, but I could be wrong as that sort of thing was concealed by many polygamous men. Morman missionaries are generally not married, but are young men between 18 and 22 or so. (So why are they called ELDERS?) Most go to the mission field right after high school. I've known several.

My mother's parents were definitely not Mexican or Mormon. He was 100% German. She was Scottish/Irish. They lived in Jalisco Mexico for a few years at the same time Geo Romney's parents lived in Mexico. The American frontier was gone. Jalisco had great weather. They invested in a copper mine. It was "nationalized" (That means stolen and later flooded.) when Pancho Villa came to power. The mine was never reopened. I had an aunt and uncle who were born there, but neither ever ran for president. They all came north during the Mexican revolution of 1912 as the "climate" became very unsafe for gringos.

[Scooter]

Where was Cruz born? Why are people saying he born in Canada?

It was enough that Barack Obama is black for you to give credence to claims that he was born in Kenya, but apparently you have been living in a cave and thus have not read or listened to any news for the last two years when Cruz's Canadian birth was mentioned practically every time they spoke his name.

I don't think it has ever been settled. McCain of course was born in Panama to US parents on military duty and there was never any hint of an argument from Democrats that he was ineligible. The Constitution, if it means born within the 50 states (or however many there were at the time of the birth) - which is how it was interpreted by the Obama birthers at the time - has never made an exclusion for children of the military.

McCain is a bit of a different case because diplomatic and military personnel stationed abroad are extensions of the country that sent them. Countries that grant citizenship to anyone born on their soil do not extend citizenship to the children born of foreign diplomats, military, etc., who at all times remain under the sole jurisdiction of their home countries, and not that of the host country, If they are clearly not natural born citizens of the country where they first drew breath, then that can only be because they are natural born citizens of the country their parents are there to serve. (I exclude the possibility that anyone can be born stateless.)

And yet the term "natural born citizen" was not invented out of thin air. It was used in British law, where the children of natural born citizens were also natural born citizens. In the U.S., the Naturalization Act of 1790 used the term natural born citizen to include children born abroad to U.S. citizens, so long as the father had at some point resided in the U.S. Yes, an ordinary statute is different from the Constitution, and yet it certainly points strongly at the intent of the Founders, coming only three years after the Constitution was drafted. Adjusting for the sexist slant that all citizenship law had in those days, Ted Cruz would be eligible, as would George Romney, Franklin Roosevelt Jr., Barry Goldwater, and any other would be presidents who were born abroad to American parents.

It would have included Barack Obama even if he had been born in Kenya, which is why birthers are just plain stupid as well as racist.