Cruz releases his birth certificate

posted at 9:21 am on August 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

His father fled Castro’s Cuba.  His mother was born in the USA.  No one doubts where Ted Cruz was born — in Calgary, Canada.  In order to settle the issue of his citizenship status, the Senator from Texas has released his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News, but it’s not likely to have much impact on the debate over his eligibility for the presidency:

Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born.

Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say.

That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport.

“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section.

The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce.”

The US and Canada have nearly identical birthright citizenship laws. The act of being born inside the country confers automatic citizenship by birth — but so does being born of an adult citizen of the country anywhere else in the world.  The US version of that latter concept wasn’t clarified until well after John McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal zone, but was well established by 1970 when Cruz was born.

The presidential requirement of being a “natural born citizen” in Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution is unique, in that the concept has pretty much no other application in American life.  However, it’s not so unique as to be completely without analogy or comprehension.  A natural-born citizen can be defined as an American that does not require extra intervention to access citizenship rights.  If Cruz had to go through the naturalization process to vote, for instance, or to get a US passport, then he would not qualify to run for President.  Instead, Cruz has been able to legally exercise his rights as a citizen without any other intervention except his coming of age, as all American citizens do.  Current law makes it clear that regardless of how Canada sees Cruz, the US saw him as a citizen by provenance of his birth — a natural-born citizen.

So why release the birth certificate at all?  I suspect Cruz is being a little tongue-in-cheek here, since the document really doesn’t have any bearing on the question his critics are asking.  Since the question is itself silly, Cruz must figure the best approach is to have a laugh about it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Democrats must be really afraid of Cruz to start this tangential, irrelevant nonsense.
We must finally be headed in the right direction.
Marcus Traianus on August 19, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Brilliantly said.

None of the other potential candidates come close to Cruz. I would be VERY enthusiastic in voting for him.

It’s about time we had a conviction politician who was a principled, wonderful patriot and great communicator.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 12:00 AM

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Given that the term birthers is used to refer to people who are convinced Obama was not born in HI as well as those who accept the same definition of natural born citizen as is set out in Vattel’s The Laws of Nations – which definition was accepted by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett, your use of the term birther (akin to truther) to refer to people who are genuinely interested in this Constitutional question is odious. Please stop. You are destroying what credibility you have left.

The weight of authority is against Obama and Cruz being natural born citizens, no matter what liberal lawyers say.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM

Punchenko on August 19, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Thank you for your response. You are of course wrong. The last 4 Presidents attended Harvard and Yale. And Cruz isn’t just smart, he’s brilliant, like Romney. And no, I don’t take it personally.

Basilsbest on August 19, 2013 at 10:25 PM

The last two Republican presidents who attended Harvard and Yale were Bush I and Bush II. And before that we had Gerald Ford who attended Yale Law School. Neither Bush I or Bush II had the level of success — politically or electorally — that was enjoyed by Ronald Reagan.

Both Bush I and Bush II tried to shed their New England image with the latter being more successful. To prevent future losses, they sent President-to-be George P. Bush to Rice and UT Austin Law.

Punchenko on August 20, 2013 at 12:30 AM

The weight of authority is against Obama and Cruz being natural born citizens, no matter what liberal lawyers say.
Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM

You may not like being regarded as a birther, but that doesn’t change the fact that both Obama and Cruz were American citizens at birth and are, therefore, natural born citizens. It’s not a lot more complicated than that.

You speak of “weight of authority” just as 9/11 attack conspiracy theorists speaks of they “weight of evidence” pointing to the attack being an inside job.

You are free to continue going in about how you think Obama was never eligible or a natural born citizen, but you would be wasting your time and embarrassing both yourself and this site.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Both Bush I and Bush II tried to shed their New England image with the latter being more successful. To prevent future losses, they sent President-to-be George P. Bush to Rice and UT Austin Law.
Punchenko on August 20, 2013 at 12:30 AM

Someone’s alma mater is irrelevant.

Cruz is more likely to be associated with Texas and the Tea Party than New England elitism.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Interesting that, with Cruz’ profile rising higher, the left-wing media suddenly has a newfound respect for birtherism and wants to pretend like the fringe nuts’ interpretations have some merit.

The fact that the left-wing media can’t slobber over Christie enough and has to really try hard to find ways to criticize Cruz, even sinking to embarrassing birther depths, tells me everything I need to know.

Makes me like Cruz even more.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 12:54 AM

The weight of authority is against Obama and Cruz being natural born citizens, no matter what liberal lawyers say.
Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM

You may not like being regarded as a birther, but that doesn’t change the fact that both Obama and Cruz were American citizens at birth and are, therefore, natural born citizens. It’s not a lot more complicated than that.

You speak of “weight of authority” just as 9/11 attack conspiracy theorists speaks of they “weight of evidence” pointing to the attack being an inside job.

You are free to continue going in about how you think Obama was never eligible or a natural born citizen, but you would be wasting your time and embarrassing both yourself and this site.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 12:34 AM

What I don’t like is people using derogatory terms to try to win a legal argument. The terms citizen at birth – a 14th amendment citizen – and a natural born citizen, are not the same. You obviously don’t know the historical meaning of natural born citizen, or you are prepared to ignore it because your preferred candidate – probably the best candidate – does not meet the definition as that term was understood by the framers at the time the Constitution was passed.

You are engaging in the same type of deception and name calling as liberals engaged in when Obama’s eligibility was questioned by Constitutionalists. This is shameful.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

You are engaging in the same type of deception and name calling as liberals engaged in when Obama’s eligibility was questioned by Constitutionalists. This is shameful.
Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Look, it has been explained to the birthers over and over and over.

I’m just not going to waste the time anymore. If you forgot the facts, please go to ResistWeMuch’s blog, where it is all laid out nicely for you. Sadly, facts don’t matter to you.

Indulging nut fringe birthers is pointless. They won’t change. The best response is mockery.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 1:14 AM

You are engaging in the same type of deception and name calling as liberals engaged in when Obama’s eligibility was questioned by Constitutionalists. This is shameful.
Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Please do NOT attempt to usurp the term “constitutionalist” in order to try to give fringe birthers undeserved legitimacy.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 1:18 AM

400!

freedomfirst on August 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM

What I don’t like is people using derogatory terms to try to win a legal argument. The terms citizen at birth – a 14th amendment citizen – and a natural born citizen, are not the same.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Exactly.

“Born citizen” is not the same as “citizen”.

“Born citizen” is a subset of “citizen”.

Similarly…

“Natural born citizen” is not the same as “born citizen”.

“Natural born citizen” is a subset of “born citizen”.

The word “Natural” refers to “Natural Law”. And when one reads the same resources that the Founders read in regards to Natural Law…

THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

…one sees that

natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor v. Happersett, echoed that languange in their decision. Virginia Minor did not need the 14th Amendment in order to be considered a citizen because she was a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.

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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

There are two types of citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens.

But there are two types of born citizens: natural born citizens (born in the country of parents who were its citizens) who do not need the 14th Amendment, and those who were born citizens by man-made law (either the 14th Amendment or other law).

Wong Kim Ark was considered a citizen from birth, a born citizen, but was never referred to as a “natural born citizen” because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth on U.S. soil (and if they had been U.S. citizens, he would have been a natural born citizen who did not need the 14th Amendment, JUST LIKE VIRGINIA MINOR).

ITguy on August 20, 2013 at 8:34 AM

You are engaging in the same type of deception and name calling as liberals engaged in when Obama’s eligibility was questioned by Constitutionalists. This is shameful.
Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Look, it has been explained to the birthers over and over and over.

I’m just not going to waste the time anymore. If you forgot the facts, please go to ResistWeMuch’s blog, where it is all laid out nicely for you. Sadly, facts don’t matter to you.

Indulging nut fringe birthers is pointless. They won’t change. The best response is mockery.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 1:14 AM

RWM believes that the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1940 amended Article Two of the Constitution. This is an odd assertion for a lawyer. Further he confuses natural born citizen with citizen at birth. In order to understand the meaning of natural born citizen one needs to look at the meaning of that term when the Constitution was written.

In the 1875 case of Minor v Happersett the Supreme Court interpreted natural born citizen to mean children born in a country of parents who were citizens.

I prefer the opinions of the Supreme Court and John Bingham to RWM.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Now this is interesting…

Top of the left-hand “Top Picks” column:

Ted Cruz: I’m not going to get into a legal debate about whether I’m also a Canadian citizen

Aug 19, 2013 8:41 PM by Allahpundit

Top of the right-hand “The Blog” column:

Cruz: I’ll renounce my Canadian citizenship that I never used

Aug 20, 2013 8:01 AM by Ed Morrissey

ITguy on August 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM

ITguy on August 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Please quit spamming that dumb post of yours in all of the threads. It was pointless and idiotic the first time you did it, and it didn’t need to be reposted 10 more times.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 9:00 AM

You are engaging in the same type of deception and name calling as liberals engaged in when Obama’s eligibility was questioned by Constitutionalists. This is shameful.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Discernment is a word most do not understand, you are one of those.

Your line of thinking is that if a citizen was on a vacation in France, and gave birth, that child would not be a citizen, how ridiculous is that? If on a boat under another country’s flag and gave birth…so any woman who is past six months pregnant, in traveling risks having a foreign born child who is not a citizen of the United States…yeah, the framers of the constitution knew that.

In a time where travel meant extended travel of months…they figured that any child born of a citizen, and not on our soil, was “suspect”? How about if the father was on foreign soil, why just the mother, don’t they have equal status?

The foolishness in a birthers brain will be studied for years.

Good grief, sit down, relax, use your head…no, wait, they won’t work…pick up the bottle and keep drinking, that’s your only hope.

right2bright on August 20, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Unconstitutionally relaxing the requirement for president has done quite a bit in propelling our nation down the path of progress. Just ask Obama.
I would have thought that Obama as president would have sharpened the minds of those who claim to be “conservative” or on the side at least of the constitution. But instead it has made them idiots who think that the way to win against progressive’s is to further erode the protections the Constitution affords the Citizens. Here the protection is to have loyal to the nation President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Instead, they want to allow any anchor baby to have the ability to be President.

Our government is designed for A Virtuous and Religious people. It is wholly unsuited for any other people.
What was really meant…
We designed a government that can be appropriated easily by outside forces once we are dead. You guys really should plan to make changes quickly after we the founders are gone! LOL, HAH HAH HAH, what a bunch of dolts, I cannot believe you retards were willing to die for us!

We gave you a republic, if you can keep it.
What was really meant… According to RWM…
We gave you a self destructing government, see if you can keep it! See, we put in poison pills that will take effect after we founders have left this earth. As an example the term natural born citizen really just means any disloyal brat born on the soil by foreigners intent to do harm to the nation. Good luck suckers!

astonerii on August 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 8:35 AM

RWM is a she.

Bmore on August 20, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Discernment is a word most do not understand, you are one of those.

Your line of thinking is that if a citizen was on a vacation in France, and gave birth, that child would not be a citizen, how ridiculous is that? If on a boat under another country’s flag and gave birth…so any woman who is past six months pregnant, in traveling risks having a foreign born child who is not a citizen of the United States…yeah, the framers of the constitution knew that.

In a time where travel meant extended travel of months…they figured that any child born of a citizen, and not on our soil, was “suspect”? How about if the father was on foreign soil, why just the mother, don’t they have equal status?

The foolishness in a birthers brain will be studied for years.

Good grief, sit down, relax, use your head…no, wait, they won’t work…pick up the bottle and keep drinking, that’s your only hope.

right2bright on August 20, 2013 at 9:21
AM

I write legal briefs for a living. I have cited the words of Chief Justice Waite. Of course it’s possible that if the words were interpreted today there might be a different result. One thing is clear. The use of sarcasm and pejorative terms like birther do not convince serious people seriously examining a serious constitutional issue. They serve only to discredit the people who use them.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 8:35 AM

RWM is a she.

Bmore on August 20, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Thank you. (Sophie is it?). I’ve seen her referred to as a he. She is, in any case, clearly wrong when she uses the 14th Amendment and Acts of Congress to interpret Article Two of the Constitution. One needs to look at the meaning and purpose of the words natural born citizen when the Constitution was written.

The requirement that a President be a natural born citizen was incorporated in order to prevent someone with divided loyalties from being eligible. Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood is a case in point. If his father had been an American rather than a Kenyan Muslim perhaps we wouldn’t have President who is supplying aid and comfort to the enemy.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I’ll mea culpa on the birther issue.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/08/20/ted-cruz-ally-rand-pauls-team-raising-questions-in-iowa-about-cruzs-eligibility/comment-page-2/#comment-2431552
Then again, this nation really does deserve to perish.

astonerii on August 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

bluegill on August 19, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Well, the IDIOTS have, so you’re half right.

The “birther” label is (like “TeaBagger”) a deliberate derrogatory applied to anyone who sees smoke and suspects a fire with Obama. There is just something shady about someone who hides EVERY document supporting their past, then presents an obvious forgery that would never even stand up in court.

And Basil, he couldn’t have been “echoing” something that occurred 9 years AFTER the aforementioned speech.

PJ Emeritus on August 20, 2013 at 4:12 PM

An obvious forgery.
The green banner was photo shopped in, badly, and wasn’t even used on “certificates of birth” in Calgary. The font (army/stencil) wasn’t even invented in 1971. There are three different dates on the fake form.
As much as I love Rafael, I wish he would jut release his long form and shut up the nut job birthers on the right…like Trump.

greataunty on August 20, 2013 at 10:39 PM

I write legal briefs for a living. I have cited the words of Chief Justice Waite. Of course it’s possible that if the words were interpreted today there might be a different result. One thing is clear. The use of sarcasm and pejorative terms like birther do not convince serious people seriously examining a serious constitutional issue. They serve only to discredit the people who use them.

Basilsbest on August 20, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Taking Down the Minor v. Happersett Silliness

One sees on every birther blog people claiming that Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent for the definition of “natural born citizen.” I thought I would point out in detail why this is a meritless claim that no competent lawyer would make.

rukiddingme on August 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

ITguy on August 20, 2013 at 8:34 AM

The born citizen that isn’t natural born is unnatural born. Naturally.

rukiddingme on August 21, 2013 at 1:50 PM

The best response is mockery.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 1:14 AM

…EXCEPT!…for you!

KOOLAID2 on August 21, 2013 at 7:49 PM

My head hurts.

kingsjester on August 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Don’t be fooled. Blueshill wants the lardass from NJ to run in ’16!

cableguy615 on August 22, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4