The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
9 votes

The Hill: Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate

By Jonathan Easley

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) released his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News on Sunday, a move that will undercut critics who say he’s ineligible to run for president.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother. The Constitution says only a “natural born” American citizen can become president, which includes those born overseas to American parents.

However, The Dallas Morning News reports that under Canadian law, Cruz’s birthplace of Calgary also made him an instant citizen of Canada. The Constitution doesn’t address whether someone with dual citizenship can run for the highest office.

Read more:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I guess some people have no

I guess some people have no problem submitting a valid, non-fraudulent birth certificate...3 years BEFORE even potentially running for President.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

That's an interesting train of thought...

If someone produced a valid birth certificate from Sri Lanka, with the mother being a US citizen, and the father being a citizen of Romania, that person is natural born and qualifies to run for President of the United States?

I will dismiss him forever

I will dismiss him forever...if he tries to run against Rand Paul.

Its Rand Paul on none at all.

I don't know

I wouldn't mind seeing a line of limited government candidates at the debates for a change, agreeing with each other instead of everyone picking on the one, lonely candidate on stage.

When it comes to foreign policy.

I would bet gold to worthless FRN that they all agree. The line send american sons to proxy wars for IzUnreal.


I wouldn't either

It would be nice for him to start out, and then once he drops out endorse Rand. That's a move I would accept for sure.

Eric Hoffer

Just a clarification from what I have read

Depending on what contemporary source you use to define a natural born citizen, a single citizen parent may be enough as long as you are born on sovereign soil. This is because it was not assumed at the time that you automatically gained citizenship based on place of birth. So, if you were born overseas to two parents who are both citizens then you might be natural born since you have no divided loyalties without the birthright citizenship. Most countries still do not have birthrigt cotizenship. He whole point of natural born is that you do not have any potential conflicts of loyalty, if you have dual citizenship you are most definitely not natural born.... I believe Cruz clearly isn't. The whole birthed argument over Obama is whether he was born on sovereign soil since his father was not a us citizen, so if he wasn't actually born in Hawaii then he would not be natural born. A secondary point of contention is whether or not he had to declare loyalty to Indonesia when he lived there as a boy, as this is what Indonesian law requires. If so he would technically have given up his us citizenship at that time. Citizenship law is wonderful, ain't it?

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

has nothing to do with WHERE you are born

We don't practice 'jus soli' here, but 'jus sanguinis' and you need TWO american parents to create a natural born citizen. One American parent will make you a citizen if you're born on American soil, one American parent living abroad married to a foreigner makes that child a citizen of that country with potential for dual citizenship if the American parent decides to go through the trouble of getting the papers stamped.
I really don't understand how anyone can be confused about this.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Why two parents? Throughout

Why two parents?

Throughout the Law of Nations, there is constant reference to "things" being passed via the, intellect, character, name, etc. When he comes to citizenship, there is less clarity, but it seems obvious that since many other things are passed via the father, so would citizenship. If the founders truly were basing their views SOLELY on the Law of Nations, this is the conclusion. Not surprising considering how people viewed women at the time.

Now, you may be saying, "AHA! This invalidates Obama since his father wasn't a US citizen!"

But the 14th amendment enacted equal protection under the law. Therefore, it would be unequal if only men could pass their citizenship along, not women. And since the 14th amendment specifically grants rights and does not take any away, instead of saying "you now need two parents", it has to be "you only need one parent".

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:


Specific cuts; defense spending:

I would argue

a stronger case for the mother. There have been fathers that had children they thought were theirs but were not. That's never the case with mothers...

Permit me to hint

whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen..."
Letter from John Jay to George Washington

Vattel’s Law of Nations Section 212 Book I, Chapter 19:
“Les naturels ou indigenes” are those persons born in a country of parents [plural] that are citizens. The complete sentence, Les naturels ou indigenes,” sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens in French translates to “The natural or native, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Cruz, like Rubio and Jindal and Obama, is INELIGIBLE!!!! TWO American citizen parents create a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!! He has to STOP using Common Core math.

The term “natural born Citizen” was added to the Article 2 Presidential Eligibility Requirements of the Constitution to address the fear of those with foreign allegiances ascending to the presidency. The committee carefully chose the English words “natural born Citizen” for the Constitution as John Jay submitted them so that the sentence would have the identical meaning as the 1758 Vattel sentence in French and to make it obvious that the term refers to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of Nations. The eligibility requirement was passed unanimously.

The First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 found at 1 Stat, at Large, 103:
“SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons 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. 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790."

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

The argument in your

The argument in your statement of requiring 2 parents is flawed. You state that it says parents (plural) which is correct but forget to include the beginning of it with persons(plural) as well. The statement is refering to all Natural born citizens which would have multiple parents.

If the statement was a person born of parents that are citizens you would be correct.

But the statement is persons who are are born of parents that are citizens. This is pluralistic subject requiring parents to be plural as it is talking about all the parents for all the persons.

You can have one of those persons having 1 parent who is a citizen to make the statement still true. Its because of talking about multiple people that you have multiple parents, not because a single person requires more than 1 parent.

The Act of 1790

was repealed and replaced with “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act [entitled], “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

This act of 1795 removed the words "natural born citizen" found in the naturalization act of 1790.

not sure about this

BUT, personally I think natural born ought to mean first and foremost those born to TWO (father and mother) American full Citizens. Then the lines get gray from then on. I don't see why an infant that happened to be born abroad to citizens overseas ought to be disqualified from the presidency.

Once you start adding foreign nationals into the mix it all goes pear shaped. And this is my opinion why it ought to be "pear" shaped from this point. Any child that is born to two different nationalities can "pick" or "choose" what country of their parents they want a passport to. They can even have dual citizenship in some cases. I think it would be unwise to have a president that has this opportunity.

Obviously, anyone can try to immigrate and change their citizenship to another country as a full citizen of America (for example). However this is very difficult if you don't have a parent that is already a citizen.

Just my two cents. obama is a mistake, and oddly enough it seems we will be faced with this mistake several times going forward: Romney, Rubio, Cruz, the list likely goes on and on.

For the record, Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan, to two

American citizens. His eligibility to be President is unquestionable. (Just as his inadequacy is unquestionable.)

It was Romney's FATHER, George, who was born in Mexico - but was still a US citizen by virtue of the fact that both of his parents were US citizens.

People keep claiming falsely, that it was MITT who was born in Mexico.

yeah and Bobby Jindal...and John McCain

We cannot look into the hearts of men to determine their loyalty to the country and the constitution. So we must have safeguards in place. If your loyalties are divided naturally (even if only on paper) because you are born under the jurisdiction of another country and thus have dual citizenship, your natural loyalty is automatically in question. We must draw this line at birth as all other age lines would be arbitrary.

Incidentally, Cruz spent his first 7 years in Canada. At what point does a child gain a sympathy to the country where they were born?

It depends on the child so you eliminate the guessing game.

You CAN be sure

TWO American citizens create natural born citizens - regardless of where they are born as long as those parents aren't living in another country with plans to permanently reside and become citizens of that country. Nothing gray about it. Easy.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison



First neocon I've heard of

First neocon I've heard of that opposes NDAA, the Patriot Act, foreign aid to Libya, Egypt & Pakistan, arming the Syrian rebels and intervening in Libya.

Maybe you should learn what "neocon" means before you throw that word around.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out:

If he's supported and promoted

by NeoCon's, he's a NeoCon.

Ron Swanson

I'm not sure what neocons

I'm not sure what neocons you're talking about. Many big names in the neoconservative world have actually spoken up against Ted Cruz.

Supported and promoted by:
- Ron Paul
- Rand Paul
- Mike Lee
- Justin Amash
- Andrew Napolitano

What do the real neocons think?
- Peter King said Ted Cruz is a "dangerous" "isolationist" who would be "destroyed" by Hillary if he ever ran for President
- Bill Kristol described Ted Cruz as a "grandstander" and "anti-military"
- Tom Cotton openly confronted Cruz over his positions on domestic drone use at an AEI summit
- Charles Krauthammer said Ted Cruz is "quite nuts"
- John McCain called Ted Cruz a "wacko bird"

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out:

So if...

...John and Abigail Adams had had a child born while over in France, say, then that son/daughter would have been disqualified from running for higher office upon returning home? I'll have to go look up what the Founders said in their own words about this.

yes the kid would be disqualified

The only exception that I know of is if John Adams was serving as a ambassador and his wife was with him overseas. They made exceptions for ambassadors as they were overseas serving their country. I believe later they made exceptions for military overseas if the child was born on a military base. At the signing of the constitution though, they had no reason to believe that a pregnant American woman would be overseas where her husband was fighting. Nor do I suspect they would have thought we'd have military bases all over the globe.


If parent(s) are ambassadors or travellers the child does not get disqualified from being a natural born citizen. If both parents are American, the citizenship of the child will 'naturally' be American. The Founders rejected 'jus soli' and instituted 'jus sanguinis' but determined it takes TWO American citizens to create a natural born citizen. Some countries may accept that only one parent is needed to make that determination, but not America.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Don't be so knee jerk

If you reread what I said....

I said ambassadors were given an exception. I am saying that it takes two citizen parents and birth on American soil to be natural born.

If you are rejecting the birth on American soil and are using the Naturalization act of 1790 as your reasoning, then I think your reasoning is faulty as that Act was repealed just 5 years later and replaced with a "naturalization" act that replaced the words natural born with naturalized. You can not be naturalized and be natural born. That is oximoronic and I think a good reason to repeal the act in the first place.

How about...

...this scenario:

Father = US citizen, born in US to two US citizens
Mother = US citizen & foreign citizen: born abroad to US citizen father and foreign citizen mother
Child = born in US to the above parents (both US citizens, one dual citizen); happens to receive foreign citizenship as well, because of mother

In this case, it's a dual citizen born to two US citizens, on US soil; one parent happens to be a dual citizen (NOT solely a foreign citizen).

Is the child (me :) ) natural-born? (Not that I would want to run for President anyway, lol!)

In other words, is there a distinction between the child of a US citizen and a dual citizen, and the child of a US citizen and a foreign national (born on US soil in both cases)?

Yes of course you are natural born :)

In fact if BOTH your parents were foreign born and became naturalized citizens and they were citizens at the time of your birth And you were born on the soil then you would also be a natural born citizen.

It matters what the status of your parents are at the time of your birth.

So then...

...being a dual citizen would not necessarily negate natural-born status? (Although, I suppose if such a person would want to run for President, they might get grief if they didn't renounce their other citizenship, regardless.)

And you needn't be knee jerk, either

I knew when I wrote it the 1790 Act was replaced but wanted out there the FIRST Act written explaining citizenship and not have this huge post going over every single change and amendment to citizenship/naturalization laws.
I'm explaining the difference between 'jus soli' and 'jus sanguinis'. Two American decide to take a trip around the world and have a child while abroad will not make that child anything but a natural born American citizen.
You're the one saying the kid must be born on American soil and I'm saying no, it's the parents' citizenship (jus sanguinis) that determines if the child is a citizen or natural born citizen - two parents same citizenship child is natural born American regardless of where child born (unless parents seeking citizenship in foreign country), parents of different citizenships create an American citizen.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I'm not saying...'re incorrect, but doesn't that seem a bit arbitrary, to, in general, strip an American citizen, born to American parents who just happened to be on tour overseas at the time, of their ability to one day become President? I can understand not allowing those who weren't US citizens at their birth, or who were born to parents who were not US citizens -- kind of a firewall against foreign influence -- but the above scenario seems kind of arbitrary.

Personally, I would never run for higher office, as I discovered just last year that I have been a dual citizen since birth (had previously thought I was only US). Kind of weird to grow up to discover that what you had heard your whole life 'you could grow up to be President one day, if you wanted to' was all an illusion. Perhaps, if a dual citizen (who was born in the US to US citizens) renounced their citizenship to the other nation, that would assuage some of the concerns?