29 votes

Ted Cruz sheds Canadian citizenship. What a con.


Obviously he is planning a run for president, and is going to fool the populous with this ploy.

(sigh) Let's get this straight. There is a difference between what is required for US Citizenship, and what is required to become President!!!

To become PRESIDENT, one has to have BOTH parents be US Citizens, AND be born on US soil (which can count territories or military bases, etc). This was always so stupid about the Obama eligibility issue. It didn't MATTER where he was born, because based upon the birth cert. that HE, himself presented, he was INeligible due to the fact that ONE of his parents was NOT a US citizen. Even if he had been born in Kansas.... the fact that ONE of his parents was not a US citizen should have disqualified him. Of course, by keeping the public running around on the WHERE of his birth, he was able to present in plain site, the disqualifying factor and nobody noticed, and he laughed all the way to the election!!!

So now we have Cruz, who not ONLY was BORN on Canadian soil, but ALSO had one parent who was NOT a US citizen (his father was Cuban). So no matter which criteria you use, he is ineligible.

Same goes for Mark Rubio. He WAS born on American soil, but BOTH of his parents were Cuban citizens. Therefore he is also ineligible.

This is not rocket science.... but the American people are so ignorant and so easily lead that I am sure that BOTH of these men will be dividing the vote and running for president, without a peep to be heard.

Comment viewing options

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


did an excellent job of breaking down the differences between "United States citizen" and Natural born United States citizen."

The framers didn't care where you were born, or who your parents were, they did care about allegiance to the United States. The only time allegiance is questioned is when someone is running for the presidency of the United States. Only 45 people have ever had to prove their natural born status in the history of our country. What's the purest form of citizenship that would be required to hold the highest office in the United States? Natural born, born on US soil to US citizen parents. The candidate would have no foreign allegiance, their only allegiance would be to the United States, with no foreign influence.

Dual citizens have allegiance to another country which is what the framers wanted to avoid. Citizens born in another country to US citizen parents have an allegiance to the country in which they were born, regardless of their parents' citizenship.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada which means he hit the trifecta. He was born in a foreign country to a citizen of Cuba and a citizen of the United States. He can con us all he wants, but there's no way he is a natural born United States Citizen. At the moment of birth, in order to qualify as a natural born United States citizen who now wants to run for the highest office in the land, the presidency, he must qualify under Article II, both parents must be American citizens and the child must be born on US soil.

This according to the Constitutional scholars at CNN:

It's official: Ted Cruz a citizen of the US - and the US only


They don't get it, he can't make himself a natural born United States citizen if he has to go to court and renounce his allegiance to Canada. The only thing that matters is at the moment of his birth he must be born on US soil to US citizen parents, in other words, he can't be granted natural born status through court proceedings. The purest form of citizenship, required to run for the office of president of the United States, cannot be bestowed on a person through decree.

How can this "Cruz Birther Issue" be so controversial?

As you have stated, this is not rocket science, it is simple and black and white, and Rubio and Cruz BOTH do not fit the simple requirements. Where is the controversy? Why is this confusing or complicated to people?

Because most Americans

don't understand the Constitution. They listen to CNN, or Fox, or CNBC. I'm not confused, you aren't confused, Lawmanjeb isn't confused, the MSM is thoroughly confused or confusing on purpose.

Cruz is just as un-electable as

Romney and McShame. He would never get my vote.

Ron Swanson

Only problem is ...

You can *never* shed Goldman-Sachs


Cruz is not eligible nor was Obama.God save us from the US court system of lies that won't back SC decisions of NB citizens.We live in a strange land indeed.

Maybe He is...

Applying for an Israeli citizenship now. He might as well.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Voltaire

I'm certainly not-

one of these "There ought to be a law" for everything people, but NOBODY with ANY type of "dual citizenship" should be allowed anywhere near the upper echelons of the US government.


The natural born requirement should eliminate Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and should have eliminated Obama. Or, maybe our first post racial president is also our first post constitutional president (there's now enough evidence of that).


he'll regret that many years after losing his bid for Presidency.


Is just going to say, "Obama did it, why not Cruz?"


thinks two wrongs make a right, the common core of political news, 1 + 1 = 3.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Future generations: "We hung Obama, why not Cruz?"


I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

SteveMT's picture

A chameleon, tree frog, tuatara, Ted Cruz, seahorse, & flounder.

No matter how the color changes on the outside, the inside remains the same.
10 Animals That Can Change Color

I don't trust Cruz or ANY

I don't trust Cruz or ANY candidate ... I DEMAND a natural born citizen as originally interpreted by common law, i.e. the candidate and BOTH parents must be born in one the states of the union. I won't settle for anything less in a candidate for POTUS. Just like 2008 with wacko McCain, I'll vote 3rd party before I'll compromise on this issue.

Cruz... lol

To renounce ones citizenship, one must go to court and declare this. It take 3 years for this process from your 1st court appearance.

Ted Cruz if he renounced today legally in court, would not be eligible to run for president till 2020. You cannot run for president with dual citizenship, and Ted Cruz has dual citizenship, and to date has not went to court to start the process.

I think if he even considerers running he may not be qualified to even renounce his Canadian Citizenship. Good moral standards is not one who defies US LAW. I think he should reconsider his position.

But hay, What difference does it make?
Sorry couldn't help myself...

Forgot, when the 3 years are up after first court appearance he then will become a naturalized us citizen. If he is of good moral character.

In my opinion, those who

In my opinion, those who publically run, plan or attempt to run for the office of President or Vice President, or hold themselves out as actual or potential Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates, but are not eligible to such high offices, such as US Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, along with all those who knowingly assist them in pursuing such office, are guilty of Conspiracy under 18 US Code § 371, specifically conspiracy "to defraud the United States", and arguably to commit treason, and are traitors!

It is a well known adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Certainly "ignorance" of the US Constitution, "the supreme law of the land" is no excuse, particularly for US Senators who have sworn a solemn oath to support and defend it and have the utmost duty to do so.

Title 18 US Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States:

"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

You can't have it both ways...

I'm enjoying this discussion - so thank you.

Here you rightfully point out that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. This principal, however, is paired with the principal that the law must be well defined.

In your response to my original comment, you make an an assumption in that the logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC must be both born on US soil and of US Parents. However, it is not defined as such.

I'd love it if there was more definition in the law.

As for the founders/framers wanting to keep foreign influence out of American politics - it is a double edged sword. Although their intentions are good - foreign influence is what started this country. That is a fact. From that, once can argue that a foreigner fleeing their country looking for more freedom and opportunity in the US is capable of being a great president, and possible more 'pure' in their intentions. Requiring presidents to be born on soil and/or of citizen parents may really only help to keep the good-ole families in place, since they are familiar with the system that we all were born into, but know how to play it for their own gain.

BTW: I do agree with the sentiment of happygirlapps. They are just lines that are controlled by others. And you or I never got the chance to decide which side of the line we were born on. Ultimately voters and citizens can vote in changes (or rise up against the whole thing)... but that just doesn't happen does it?

Ignorance of the lawmanjed

If you want to go by "law", then the constitution doesn't apply to anyone living today, and it didn't even really apply to most "US" citizens when it was signed.. it never did.


Who cares about citizenship anyway... what difference does it make what side of some line you were born on? All the lines were drawn up by the power elite anyway... be a good slave now and fight over your side of the line, your mom plopped you out on.

In a way

you are correct. The framers didn't care about anyone's allegiance to the United States, UNLESS, they were running for the highest office in the land, the presidency. Now, the Natural Born clause matters.

Now there's some 'tude for ya

Gotta love it. +1.

Where does it say "AND"?

Where does it say that 'Natural Born' means both parent citizens AND in US/territory? I'd like to see your references so that I can learn something new. My references are at the bottom.

Not defending Cruz or Obama (believe me), but all I can find is that "Natural Born" was never defined. It's been narrowed as something like the 'right of citizenship at birth'. That comes in two forms:

1. Born on US Soil


2. Born to US Parents (blood)

(If BHO was born in Hawaii, than he passed the modern definition #1.)

In wedlock situation, it really depends on how much time the citizen parent has been present in the US prior to birth, and after the child's 14th birthday.

(For Cruz, it really depends on where she lived, and how long she lived there. do you know those answers? His fathers immigration status could make the test less strenuous.)





Still Waiting...

OK. So, I've read through the responses, and I still don't see the word "AND". Although enlightening, case references don't do any more than we are doing here. Which isn't a bad thing, it just doesn't answer my original question.

Also, I'm not going buy a book to get an answer to a question that I've asked those who 'know' the law (or read the book). If the law or book clearly answers my question as to where it says "AND", please cite it.

NBC Combines Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis

The sources you cited are misleading and incomplete. Natural born citizenship (NBC) simply combines the principles of jus soli (law of the soil) and jus sanguinis (law of the blood) to create the highest level of citizenship. Though "native-born" is often confused with or asserted as identical to "natural born", it is not; native born simply means born on the soil of the nation (ie. citizenship via jus soli)! NBCs are second or later generation citizens, ie. children of citizen parents. Upon my birth on US soil to US citizen parents, there is no possibility that I can be born with citizenship or allegiance to any other nation. Most likely I will be raised with identity and allegiance solely to the US. All citizens of the US have equal rights and responsibilities, EXCEPT that ONLY NBCs are eligible for the offices of President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution - the only clause that mentions NBC) or Vice President (12th Amendment). This highest level of citizenship is required by the Constitution to prevent foreign identity, loyalty or influence upon our Presidents or Vice Presidents.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Natural Born Citizenship Defined by US Supreme Court

Some history, discussion and definition of "natural born citizen":

1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, then presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, proposing that the President be a "natural born citizen" (NBC): “Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Foreigners were those with foreign citizenship or allegiance, or born of a foreign parent.

2) Shortly after the convention concluded, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the President be "born a citizen of the United States": "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407);

3) The Convention adopted the more stringent NBC requirement for Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution presidential eligibility clause, as distinguished from Hamilton's "born a citizen" standard, and of course, from a mere "citizen" standard: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

4) NBC was a legal phrase with which the founders were well familiar from the works of Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" and from other authors and works which they used to accomplish their goal of insuring that future Presidents would have undivided loyalty and allegiance to America;

5) Americans had recently won their independence from the British in a bloody 8-year long war and were justifiably concerned about the loyalty and allegiance of future Presidents and the risk of foreign influence on their new nation and its chief executive and commander-in-chief;

6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by his birth on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to one or even two foreign (including British) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unthinkable to the founders and could not have been overlooked or adopted by them.

7) The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the wake of he Civil War, merely defined "citizens" as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it says nothing about NBC, which is a special type of citizen. In not even attempting to redefine NBC or amend or delete Article II, Section 4, it left NBC alone, ratifying its status as a special type of citizenship.

THEREFORE: the only logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC requires:

1) Child's birth on US soil; and
2) US citizenship of both parents at child's birth.

Furthermore, NBC was defined by the US Supreme Court in its holding in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which stated that: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, citing and following its dicta (opinions not needed for its rulings) in several of its earlier Supreme Court cases. This holding was followed and cited by the Supreme Court in several of its subsequent cases, including its decision in Wong Kim Ark, which defined citizenship in general and not NBC, and has never been overruled.

The Court in Minor, in light of the 14th Amendment, chose not to define "citizen", leaving that definition for another day, but determined that Ms. Minor was in fact a NBC, as defined in its dicta in several of its previous decisions, and therefore logically was, of course, a "citizen". This finding that Minor was a citizen was essential to its decision in the case; therefore, its definition of NBC is not merely dicta, or comment in passing not necessary for its decision, but law binding on other Courts as precedent until overruled by the Court itself.

Despite the foregoing, many people and even some misguided lower Courts, have ignored or dismissed Minor and subsequent Supreme Court cases that have cited it, thought it is binding law and precedent, and continue, whether intentionally or negligently, to confuse, misunderstand or equate "natural born citizen" (NBC) with "born citizen", "citizen at birth", or "native-born citizen", or with mere "citizen", when logic and common sense make it clear that NBC is a more stringent subset of citizenship, the type of citizenship that most of us acquired "naturally" upon our birth in this country to American citizen parents.

This type of citizenship is "natural" since it is the only type of citizenship that requires no special laws, treaties or constitutional amendments and results naturally upon our birth; so logically we can be nothing other than American citizens, free of foreign identity or allegiance, whether dual or otherwise. Shouldn't American presidents be required to have the same type of citizenship that most of us Americans have, free of foreign identity and influence? Of course! That's why the founding fathers chose the "natural born" citizenship requirement for President, and not merely "citizen", nor "born citizen", "citizen at birth", "native-born citizen" or their equivalent.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I appreciate your response...

...and will continue reading as this fascinates me.

You assert that "AND" is the logical and 'intelligent' conclusion. I do not claim to agree or disagree with your opinion - but that isn't what I asked to see. I'm looking for the word "AND".

I'll continue reading other responses here.

TwelveOhOne's picture

"Citi-zen": urbanly contemplative

Sometimes, wordplay is silly. Other times, it's insightful. Not sure about this one, but it came to me from reading "citizen" so many times. :)

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

As much as Facebook

annoys me, I go there to share some political facts. There are a few others with the same views whom I 'follow'! Besides Twitter and Facebook, I really don't know what other sites would be the most helpful in getting the definition of 'natural born citizen' across to the most people! The ones that I sometimes get annoyed with are the ones who say "I don't care, he's better than Obama". I usually counter with, "How is he better? He's already wiping his butt on the Constitution just by running for the Presidency. He knows he's not eligible, but he doesn't care." I usually ask if he/she thinks he would then follow the Constitution once elected. For him to follow the Constitution once elected, he'd have to resign since he's not eligible! Yeah, I don't see that happening! He's in the running to pull votes from Rand, imo...
I doubt it due to our country still having hackable electronic voting machines...but I hope it comes down to Rand vs. some democrat!

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

Couldn't agree more with your

Couldn't agree more with your statement that "How is he better? He's already wiping his butt on the Constitution just by running for the Presidency. He knows he's not eligible, but he doesn't care." And then your follow up: "For him to follow the Constitution once elected, he'd have to resign since he's not eligible!" So what does that make him? A patriot or a traitor?

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?