Maybe he wanted to travel and was ashamed or afraid of bein identified as a U.S. citizen. Or maybe he just wanted free healthcare 
Coulter is a Trumper.
Nobody can deny that this Ann Coulter person knows UNnatural
I am awaiting the almighty all-knowing Birther known as David A Farrar to put this into the proper context. C’mon Dave!
Well, I will say this for the Republicans and “conservatives,” they do know how to eat their own.
This woman best get to the bird sanctuary and support her men by providing them with some female company. It’s about time she actually did something to show she’s a woman of her convictions instead of just flapping her wattle.
Anne Coulter, alleged human being, is hardly one to be calling anyone “unnatural”.
Thanks…I kind of ignore her, so I’m not aware of her (or anyone’s) positioning.
1 Like
What inquiring minds want to know is if: 1. Mama Cruz applied for and got Canadian Citizenship prior to his birth by swearing loyalty to Canada and 2. she became eligible for free Canadian Health Care that American Citizens have to pay for.
How sad! Once upon a time, Coulter and Cruz were sooo’ close and worked together well:
Always fun to hear the barking of America’s own Afghan Hound… (no offense meant to an actual Afghan Hound).
Your mother was born under a law that allowed for dual citizenship between Canadians and Americans if one parent was a US citizen. My cousins fell under the same law. However, that law did not apply to Cubans, and by the time Cruz was born the law had been changed because of so many children born out of wedlock to US military personnel stationed in Vietnam, Korea, and other parts of the world at the time because of fear by some politicians that they would swamp our nation in outsiders. (Charming to see such bigotry still exists these days.) Now the law requires that to be a natural born citizen, a child must be born on US soil - which means only in the United States or in a US embassy if outside the country. Children born to US citizens living outside the US, like Cruz’s mother, needed to register their child with the State Department asking for recognition as the child of a citizen and a US citizen by birth. Just being born to a citizen was insufficient, and since his father was Cuban at the time, not Canadian, automatic dual citizenship was not an option.
It is a very complicated situation legally, and one that the GOP Nutjobs will use if Cruz does not do exactly what he wants them to do, and one that is making GOP establishment types look very closely at how to deal with this man that they basically dislike almost as much as they dislike Trump. Ultimately, it may be the kind of case that the Supreme Court would have to rule on to final establish what “natural-born” citizen means. That phrase was included in the Constitution at the time of its writing because the country was being ruled by men who had either been born in England or in the colonies before the United States was established, and would have been ineligible to be elected to any office. That is not the case now, and the law is not catching up because until now, it has never really been an issue.
Thank you so much for this information. There were lots of secrets in the family so I never knew what to believe.
A discussion concerning, who is and who is not a US citizen at birth and who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen at birth provided within an opinion of the US Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18) 169 U.S. 649, argued: March 5, 8, 1897 and decided on March 28, 1898 is particularly relevant to the legal situation faced by the Cruz campaign.
This opinion establishes Supreme Court precedent as to both what constitutes a permissible US citizen by virtue of birth and establishes the the meaning of “natural born” in the eyes of the Court. A reading of this court opinion makes clear that I must reluctantly agree with Ms. Coulter concerning the ineligibility of Mr. Cruz for the office of the Presidency, as much as I despise the ideas that partisan and racial leanings that motivate most of Ms. Coulter’s atrocious opinions and actions.
In the US. vs Ark, the majority opinion of the court made clear that: 1) birth within the jurisdiction of the United States was de facto a sufficient requirement for a person to be a US citizen at birth and, 2) that both Justices Grey in the majority and even Justice Fuller in dissent, both agreed that the meaning of “natural born”, applied as used in common law preceding the Constitution and from which specific interpretation of meaning must necessarily be guided as pertaining to those born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
In fact, the the court went out of its way to establish that such determinations of the meanings of these words can not be made or decided by subsequent legislation at either state or federal level, but solely and directly as implicit in the Constitution, in particular to with reference to the 14th amendment. That is, no law can reinterpret what is meant by “citizen at birth” or “natural born” beyond what was implied by the Constitution itself and to do otherwise would require a constitutional amendment. The court specifically ruled that although the Congress might have the power to grant citizenship at birth to those born outside of the United States for a variety of reasons pertaining to special circumstances relating to the birth of children to US persons abroad, it does not have the authority to alter the citizenship rights of persons born within US jurisdiction. Likewise, as is evident from a reading of both opinions in favor and in dissent of the final rulings, the Congress does not have the authority to alter the meaning of “natural born” with respect to children born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
Many have suggested that Cruz’s eligibility is “settled law”. However, the decision in the US. vs Ark clearly shows that while settled, it is settled in a manner that makes Mr. Cruz ineligible to be president, since a requirement of being president in our constitution is not that a person shall necessarily a citizen of the United States, but rather and more specifically “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.”
The oft cited situation of John McCain, being born in the US Canal Zone is moot with respect to this issue, since the US canal zone was at the time of his birth clearly under the jurisdiction of the United States, since it could be and was in fact legally argued that we stole it fair and square from the Panamanians. Nonetheless, just as for those who wanted Arnold Schwarznegger to run for president, those supporting a Cruz presidency must first pass a constitutional amendment making him eligible to hold the office. As noted in both the majority and minority opinions in US vs Ark, such an amendment would be a requirement for a Cruz presidency.
There is interestingly in the US. vs. Ark another argument presented that would further seem to exclude the legality of a Cruz presidency, which was mentioned in the dissent of Justice Fuller, namely “Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British [more generally read “foreign” or “Cuban” with respect to Mr. Cruz’s situation] dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien”. That the majority opinion also fully conceded this point would further seem to specifically exclude the candidacy of Mr. Cruz, because his father was a foreign national and non-resident alien, who 1) was (is?) self-described himself as a fighter against the Cuban Fulgencio Batista regime on the side of Fidel Castro, who was at the time a recognized enemy of the United States and 2) who made no claim to US citizenship and who fled to Canada, a foreign country, rather than to the United States to which he held no allegiance at the time of Mr. Cruz’s birth. Consequently, there is prima facie evidence that any attempt to establish the that Mr. Cruz is “natural born” by virtue of the rights of his father are without legal foundation.
Further in consequence, any attempt to justify that Mr. Cruz is “natural born” on the basis of his parentage must rest solely on the citizenship of his mother. However, as both the opinion of the majority and the opinion of the dissent in US vs Ark make clear, the status of her citizenship is immaterial as to whether he was “natural born”, since had Ark been not “natural born” unlike Mr. Cruz, the Court would have decided differently as evidenced in the legal logic presented on both sides of the Ark decision.
Even though Mr. Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship and there is no legal question that he is a U.S. citizen and does meet the qualifications to be a US Senator, he does not meet the qualification as required in the US Constitution to be “natural born” as already ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Being born a US citizen at birth, but not being a natural born citizen just like Mr. Cruz, I can sympathize with his predicament. Nonetheless, any legal challenge to US vs. Ark that would grant Mr. Cruz eligibility for the office of President of the United States, would require an overturning of Supreme Court precedent or a constitutional amendment before Mr. Cruz becomes eligible for the presidency.
You indicate the situation for non natural born citizens such as myself accurately. In fact the only reason I am a US citizen today is that my father made a mad dash upon my birth to legally register me with the nearest US consulate, my only birth certificate being issued by the US State department. I owe a very great deal to my father for insuring me the privilege of US citizenship at birth.
I should have added, as I noted below, the Supreme Court has already ruled in this regard and the verdict does not give Mr. Cruz either comfort or eligibility for the office of the Presidency.
Mrs. Obama’s residency in Hawaii prior to its statehood is not germane legally since Hawaii was a territory of the US long before it became a state and under the jurisdiction of the United States. It wouldn’t matter anyway since post Ark vs the US, there is no legal question as to Obama’s legal status with respect to his eligibility as he was born in Hawaii in 1961, 2 years after Hawaii became a state.
The birther’s own rules are irrelevant. Unfortunately, the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in US vs Ark clearly make Cruz ineligible.
Ultimately, in our system, it’s not what you and I say it’s what the court decides. Likewise, Cruz’s questioning of the legal supremacy of the court by asking “why should we listen to 5 Washington lawyers” is also not relevant and no matter how much he tries to argue the contrary, the court has already spoken with regards to his ineligibility.
It hasn’t changed at all. Natural born derives from Common Law meaning born in the territory under the jurisdiction of the country involved. The ruling in US. vs Ark 1898 made this quite clear as BOTH sides of the opinion regarding Ark’s US citizenship status was predicated on his having been born WITHIN the jurisdiction of the US (San Francisco). Had he been born outside of the US, Ark would have lost his case, either in the opinion of the majority of the court, or in the opinion of its minority dissent.
In looking at other postings such as this one from Politico:
"According to U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK (1898), one is a “natural born” US citizen at birth if:
- You’re born in the US (except children of diplomats)
- You’re born outside the US to one or more US citizens",
it pretty clear that the Cruz supporters haven’t actually read the Supreme Court opinion as neither side of the opinion regarded Ark as being not a “natural born citizen”, even though both of his parents were Chinese.
Those in the Cruz camp would like to have people believe that “natural born” has the same common law meaning as “not having been born from a caesarian section” and somehow tied to the notion of the status of the mother’s nationality. However, this has never been the case and in fact a reading of the Ark decision makes it clear that members of the court on both sides of the opinion concluded that “natural born” meant, as it has always meant, born outside the jurisdiction of the United States. While Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen, although with some question as to precisely how that naturalization was obtained, the Supreme Court has already made abundantly clear in the very same decision that Cruz supporters obviously haven’t read, he is NOT a natural born citizen, as is required for eligibility for the office of the Presidency.