Aaron Blake has written this article about the fact that U.S. Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother. The article discusses the part of Article II that says presidents must be “natural-born.” Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
Although the article asserts that U.S. Senator John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, there is strong evidence that he was born in Colon, Panama, which was never part of the Canal Zone although it was virtually surrounded by the Zone.
UPDATE: see this U.S. News & World Report story about the issue. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for that link.
Place of birth has absolutely no bearing on this issue.
According to the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, who studied Emer de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” (incorporated in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, by the way), which was published almost thirty years before the Constitutional Convention, a natural born citizen in one who has the citizenship of his father. Vattel states this very clearly not once, but three times in section 212 of his work, and again in sections 213 and 215 where he keeps saying that “children follow the condition of their fathers.” Vattel NEVER ONCE mentions the mother – and it is not chauvenistic. Human genetics, where only males have the y-chromosome and thus determine gender of their offspring, proves that this is the natural plan of things.
The Library of Congress contains Farrand’s records (Robert Farrand was a Constitutional Convention scribe) of the debate around Article II. Original proposed wording was that the office of President required a “citizen of one of the several states.” Also in the Library of Congress is a letter written by John Jay (who eventually became first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was a delegate to the Convention) proposing the requirement be “natural-born citizen.” The founders/framers understood the distinction.
The US Supreme Court cited The Law of Nations at least four times from its inception through 1875 when it issued the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, in which the court cited the definition of natural-born citizen from The Law of Nations pretty much verbatim. It requires birth in the country to parents who were citizens (plural) at the time of birth.
The debates around the 14th Amendment (Congressional Record) are full of statements that confirm the definition from The Law of Nations.
The bottom line is that Ted Cruz is a natural born Cuban and thus ineligible for the office of U.S. President. But then again, likewise for Obama who, if we are to believe the official story, is a natural born Kenyan – but of course it is racist to take that position.
Winston Churchill for POTUS CINC
Again —
The ALLEGIANCE chain —
4 July 1776 State FATHERS and their kids — and
later naturalized State (1776-1789) and USA (1789 onward) FATHERS and their kids.
Possible group naturalizations in laws and treaties – i.e. areas added to the USA by treaty — LA Purchase, Mexico War Treaty, etc. — generally with option for local area adults to become a USA citizen or retain foreign regime status (i.e. France, Spain, etc.).
Possible Statutory citizens but NOT NBC for folks like Cruz – due to USA mother.
BUT possible total chaos –
Foreign regime A father
Foreign regime B mother
Foreign regime C place of birth
i.e. 3 potential ALLEGIANCE claims ??? —
what happens in a WAR involving the 3 foreign regimes A, B, C ??? Is the kid loyal or a traitor ???
Note also Art. III, Sec. 2 citizen stuff — of ONE regime.
NO dual/tri citizen stuff.
—-
14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — subject to the jurisdiction thereof = ALLEGIANCE jurisdiction.
i.e. NO such ALLEGIANCE jurisdiction for totally pregnant mothers having foreign regime fathers.
Note again that U.S.A. American Indian tribe members [survivors of the genocide against them] were only made USA naturalized citizens by USA laws in 1924 and 1940.
One more HELL of a MESS due to the SCOTUS robot party hacks perversion of history.
atripla
“those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country,”
The requirement of physical presence requires 5 years in the USA after the age of 14. Barack Obama’s mother was 17 when impregnated, and was barely 18 at the time of his birth. It was impossible for her to have lived in the United States for 5 years after age 14.
What strong evidence is there that John McCain was born in Colon?
Jim, Not that it matters, but here is a link to the image of John McCain’s birth certificate which clearly says “Colon, R.P.” Meaning Colon, Republic of Panama: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrology-news/images/johnmccainbirthcertificate.jpg
As has been pointed out before, because John McCain was born in 1936 which was almost five years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Coco Solo Naval Air Base where his father was stationed was a minimalistic installation without its own hospital. Thus, Mrs. McCain was taken into town in the capital city of Colon which did have proper medical facilities.
Again, none of this matters because, as confirmed by Senate Resolution 511 in April, 2008, a resolution which confirmed Vattel’s definition in The Law of Nations, McCain’s father WAS an American citizen at the time of his birth, so location of birth does not matter.
The northern end of the Canal Zone didn’t have a hospital in 1938. Residents of the northern end of the zone just went to the hospital in Colon.
How many birth certificates show the alleged nation-state citizenship status of the alleged father and the actual mother ???
What if the status of the bio-father is unknown ???
It really doesn’t matter where one is born, because as soon as the United Nations declares that it is the sovereignty of the earth, all people [to borrow from our own Constitution] will be; “All persons born or naturalized under the jurisdiction of the United Nations; are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and are residents of the nation wherein they reside.”
So I encourage all to stop arguing over an issue which is past, and be prepared to deal with one that definitely is coming!
I am not an expert on immigration and naturalization statutes, but I believe federal law still says that a child born to a US citizen mother who is married to the child’s father, regardless of his citizenship, is a natural born citizen (assuming mother has met five year residence requirement after the age of 14). Hence, Cruz is a natural born citizen. Obama’s US citizenship is unquestionable, as is his natural born status. He was born in Hawaii in 1961 and thus has birthright citizenship under the 14th
Amendment; it does not matter whether his parents were citizens (even though his mother was). He is a natural born citizen. Arguments to the contrary are interesting but specious.
Mark, federal law written AFTER the ratification of the Constitution that changes its meaning would illegally amend it. Only the procedures outlined in Article V of that document can be used to change it. The Constitution is a LEGAL Document and as such, like all other legal documents, must be taken to mean exactly what the authors of it meant at the time of its writing. Vattel never mentions the mother in “The Law of Nations,” only the father of whom he writes about over and over. This modern concept that the Constitution is a “living” document is absolutely anti-American and a Communist dream!
Correction, Vattel only insinuates the mother when he refers to parents – PLURAL – in the beginning of his definition. This is the same thing referenced in U.S Senate Resolution 511 declaring John McCain eligible – both parents – with an “s.” But then Vattel goes on and on about the children bearing the conditions of their father. Whether it is both parents or just the father is the only real debate here, but either way, the FATHER MUST BE a U.S. Citizen at the birth of his child if the child it to be considered a natural born American, and Ted Cruz’s was not. Case closed!
Jeff,
Why was Colon Hospital moved to the south of the naval base at Coco Solo when there was a boundary adjustment between the Republic of Panama and the Canal Zone in the 1950s?
Richard,
Wasn’t Colon in the Canal Zone?
Jim, I didn’t say anything about the hospital being moved. All I am pointing out is trivia that McCain’s birth certificate says Colon, R.P. = Republic of Panama. The U.S. Occupation of the Canal Zone was always just a lease agreement between the U.S.A. and the R.P. so it was never a U.S. territory. Don’t believe what you read on Wikipedia:
http://iilj.org/courses/documents/NewPanamaCanalTreatymaterial.pdf
And no, as can be seen on this map, Colon was not part of the Canal Zone but nearby Coco Solo was:
http://www.geographicguide.com/america-maps/canalpanama.htm