IS TED CRUZ A PRODUCT OF STRICTLY FOREIGN INFLUENCE?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 19, 2016) — Late on Monday, an individual in the United States contacted The Post & Email to advise that he had received images of a birth and death certificate, respectively, for Michael Wilson, the five-month-old child born to presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s mother while she resided in the UK in 1966.
Cruz’s mother, née Eleanor Darragh, was born in Wilmington, Delaware on November 23, 1934, and it is through her U.S. citizenship that Cruz claims to be a “natural born Citizen,” as is required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to be eligible for the presidency. Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban father on December 22, 1970 but claims “natural born” status as the child of a U.S. citizen mother and one who did not have to be “naturalized.”
However, the U.S. Supreme Court opined in a 2011 citizenship case involving a foreign-born individual, “The fact that Congress has enacted a law under which some foreign-born individuals acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by virtue of a parent’s citizenship does not mean that such individuals are not naturalized for purposes of the Constitution.”
Many constitutional scholars believe that the Framers of the Constitution wished to preclude foreign influence from entering into the office of the nation’s chief executive as evidenced by a letter written by future U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to George Washington, who was presiding over the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & 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 devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen,” Jay wrote on July 25 of that year.
Washington later responded, “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter.” The “natural born Citizen” requirement was reportedly adopted without debate for the office of president only.
In late January, The Post & Email paid for and obtained a certified copy of Darragh’s birth certificate from the State of Delaware, as vital statistics records, although initially protected by law, become releasable to the public after 72 years.
Documentation available on the internet often refers to Cruz’s mother as “Eleanor Elizabeth” or “Eleanor E.,” although no middle name appears on her birth certificate on the line labeled “Full name of child.”
On Tuesday, The Post & Email interviewed the individual, who we will call Jim Redding, as to what prompted him to hire a researcher to “obtain birth and death records for British subject in ’66” as stated when he placed his idea “out to bid” through a service with which freelance professionals register their services.
“Within 48 hours, I received a response from an individual who said, ‘I can get these for you,'” Redding told us.
“As proof that he knew what I wanted and was talking about, he sent the snapshot from a website on the topic. I then said, ‘We already have this; what we’re looking for is British documents on Baby Michael,” and he said, ‘I can get those for you. My fee is $185.00.'”
“Within a few days,” Redding told us, “he sent jpegs of the documents, and I wrote back and said, ‘I will consider the job completed and release your payment when you send me proof that the certified original copies are in the mail.'”
The researcher provided the tracking number assigned by the UK’s Royal Mail to the envelope on Monday, when it was taken from Dorset Mail Centre to Heathrow Worldwide DC on the first leg of its overseas journey.
The jpeg images reveal that the child, who died at the age of five months, bore the name “Michael Darragh” on his birth certificate but “Michael Wilson” on his death certificate.
The Dallas Morning News first reported in August 2013 that Ted Cruz was born a dual Canadian-U.S. citizen, which Cruz initially denied. Within a day, however, he vowed to renounce his Canadian citizenship, stating that as a U.S. senator, he should be “only an American.” Even then, it was speculated that Cruz would run for president in 2016 despite Fox News’s initial statement by political reporter Carl Cameron that Cruz was ineligible due to his foreign birth.
On June 10, 2014, The Dallas Morning News wrote that “The dual citizenship came as a surprise to Cruz and his parents.”
Although controversy exists over the “natural born Citizen” provision of the Constitution, it has been generally understood that “a naturalized citizen cannot serve” as president. Some legal scholars believe Cruz is eligible based on the “citizen-from-birth” theory which has emerged since Cruz announced his presidential intentions, while others contend that anyone born outside the country, even to two U.S.-citizen parents, is ineligible.
On January 16, 2016, McClatchy News Service reported that it reached Darragh’s first husband, Alan Wilson, who still resides in the UK and who allegedly stated that he “was not the father of the baby” born in 1966 to Eleanor. McClatchy further wrote:
Wilson makes a brief appearance in Cruz’s book, A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America, which was published last year.
“In 1956, my mom married her first husband, a mathematician named Alan Wilson,” Cruz wrote. The couple moved to London in 1960 after a few years working in the U.S., and Cruz revealed something of a bombshell: his mother had given birth to a son, Michael Wilson, in 1965, who had died a crib death later in the year.
Cruz wrote about her mother’s devastation: “Losing Michael to crib death broke my mother’s heart, and had a profound effect on her, so much so that I never even knew that I had had a brother until I was a teenager and my mother told me the story.”
Cruz added, “And the heartbreak also ended her marriage.”
However, on the death certificate, Alan Wilson is listed not only as the person reporting the baby’s passing, but also his father. Contrary to what Alan Wilson reportedly told McClatchy, the “name on the birth certificate” is “Darragh,” not “Wilson,” while the latter appears as the baby’s last name on his death certificate.
While Cruz reportedly wrote in his book that his half-brother, Michael Wilson, died of “crib death,” the official reason provided on the death certificate is “acute bronchitis.” Additionally, the child was born and died in 1966, not 1965.
According to McClatchy, Alan Wilson said that he and Eleanor divorced in 1963.
In the Amazon introduction to his book published last June, Cruz states, “In the Senate, I’ve tried to do two things: tell the truth, and do what I said I would do. We should expect that from every single elected official.” The summary of the book then begins, “Washington D.C. desperately needs leaders who aren’t afraid to tell the truth. And Ted Cruz tells the truth—about political collusion, a corrupted legislative process, and the bureaucratic barriers to actually fixing the enormous challenges we face. Cruz’s truth-telling habit hasn’t made him popular in Washington. But it has earned him millions of supporters nationwide.”
The introduction to the book itself is titled, “Mendacity.”
With Cruz’s connections to Canada, Cuba and Spanish-speakers, and the United States, some have speculated that Cruz is the “North American Union candidate.” “When you think about it for a minute, how neat would it be for the planned North American Union to have Ted Cruz as President? Joint citizenship in the U.S. and a Canadian citizen — who is Hispanic and can speak Spanish?” wrote Marilyn Barnewall in her column at NewsWithViews.com on February 17.
In January, Breitbart News reported discovering a document from Canada showing that Eleanor Cruz and her second husband, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, appeared on a 1974 Canadian voter roll. When contacted for comment, the Cruz campaign told Breitbart:
Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth. Nothing in the document you sent shows anything to the contrary.
First, the document itself does not purport to be a list of “registered Canadian voters.” All this might conceivably establish is that this list of individuals (maybe) lived at the given addresses. It says nothing about who was a citizen eligible to vote.
The document itself states that it is a “preliminary list of electors” subject to “corrections in, deletions from and additions to the said preliminary list.”…
Second, the document is from 1974. That is four years after Senator Cruz was born, so even if this document said anything about citizenship—and it does not—it would be irrelevant to the citizenship status of his mother at the time of his birth, which is the only relevant status for determining Cruz’s natural-born citizenship.
According to a Government of Canada website, the Canadian Citizenship Act, which took effect on January 1, 1947, “contained provisions which provided special treatment for British subjects. In general, Canadian citizens who acquired citizenship of another country automatically lost Canadian citizenship (dual citizenship was not recognized).”
The Canadian Museum of Immigration reports that by the Citizenship Act of 1947, “Canadian citizenship was automatically conferred upon natural-born Canadians.” “Natural-born citizens” as defined by the Act were “born either in Canada (with exceptions for foreign diplomatic personnel), or outside Canada if, at the time of birth, one parent is a Canadian citizen.”
The law was amended in 1977 by the Citizenship Act, which removed “special treatment” for British subjects and recognized dual citizenship.
In May 2014, Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship by submitting the required application and $100 fee, nine months after The Dallas Morning News reported that he possessed it. Page 2 of the application asks the individual so renouncing whether or not he possesses, or will soon possess, citizenship in another country so as to prevent statelessness.
Other than a blank sample, the application is not releasable under Canadian law without a signed privacy waiver. Cruz has repeatedly ignored requests to release more documentation about himself, particularly that which would connect him to U.S. citizenship.
Cruz told CNN in a January interview that his eligibility is “a non-issue” and that “the Constitution and laws…are straightforward” as to the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen.”
After Michael’s death, Eleanor reportedly returned to the United States and worked in Louisiana for a short time, where she met Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, and, according to the Cruz campaign, “moved to Canada in December 1967.”
According to divorce documents acquired by RadarOnline.com pertaining to Rafael and Eleanor, they were married on March 14, 1969. Divorce records can be obtained through Texas Public Information Act requests, as they are not protected from release by state law.
McClatchy also reported that Eleanor and Rafael married in 1969. Neither source reported where the marriage allegedly took place.
Redding said that when the British researcher sent the jpeg images, he wrote in an email, “Unfortunately, I do not know how Mrs. Wilson obtained her [suspected British] citizenship.”
Michael Wilson does not appear to have been registered as a U.S. citizen born abroad, and many have questioned why Ted Cruz has not released a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad,” or CRBA, to show that he was designated as such following his birth in Canada.
Cruz may, in fact, be a Cuban citizen due to his father’s citizenship when he was born.
The following is Redding’s speculation as to actions Eleanor might have taken to obtain British citizenship herself and later, an expedited path to Canadian citizenship. He responded to the British researcher’s email:
I said, “OK, you’ve accomplished the first task; my next task for you would be, if you can accept it, is to get some kind of access to UK applications for ‘anchor-baby’ processing.’ My thought was that once she had the birth certificate of Baby Michael in hand, and his last name is her maiden name, she would be able to take that document and maybe some other records that she had of her maiden status, not even reporting that she was a a married American in England and use those to – I wouldn’t say “forge,” but I would say only reveal what she wanted to reveal to the processors and said, “My baby is a British citizen; is there any provision where I can obtain citizenship?”
Using the anchor baby as leverage, my guess is that that is how she obtained her UK credentials.
————————-
The Post & Email will continue its interview with the researcher in a second installment.
Update: This post has been corrected to quote the British researcher as having said, “I do not know how Mrs. Wilson obtained her [suspected British] citizenship” rather than “I do not know how Mrs. Wilson obtained his citizenship.”
Ted Crus is ineligible to be either President of U.S. Senator because he remains a Canadian citizen. He purportedly renounced his Canadian citizenship but to be eligible he had to have or was seeking another citizenship. He did not have nor does he now have American citizenship.
Reference: Osborn v Bank, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 738 1.c 827 (1824);Ozawa v United states, 260 U.S. 178(1922);Weedin v Chin Bot, 274 U.S.657 1.C. 663 (1927); United States v. Perkins, 17 F. Supp. 117 (1937); City of Boerne v. Flores, 501 U.S. 507 (1997); Calvin v Smith 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608); Comments by Blackstone in 1765; Papers by James Madison 22 May 1989; U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Vol 7, Not including in the meaning of “in the United States @c. (8-21-2009; Comment of Attorney General George Henry Williams on the 14th Amendment in 1883; judicial determination on ineligibility of George Romney to be president by Pickney G. McElwee of the D.C.Bar in the Congressional record of 6-14-1967; Civil Rights Act of 1866; the 14th Amendment to the Constitution; the 1866 discussion of the framers of the 14th Amendment regarding jurisdiction “Not owing allegiance to anybody else”; United States v. Rhodes,17 F. Cas. 785 (1866);Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884.
In United v. Perkins, a federal court denied a plaintiff with the identical birth circumstances as Cruz for not meeting the 14th Amendment.
Ted Cruz is nominated at President for the Republican party will present the greatest Christmas gift ever given in American history
We do not know if Cruz holds U.S. citizenship, as neither the State Department nor USCIS will release any of his documentation, if it exists, nor will Cruz. He has not released his application to renounce Canadian citizenship, which asks if the applicant possesses or will soon possess citizenship in another country, and the Canadian government will not release the document without his written consent.
Neither the Texas Secretary of State nor the governor will say whether or not they possess documentation that Cruz is a U.S. citizen.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/04/24/was-cruz-warned-four-years-ago-about-running-for-the-u-s-senate-as-a-canadian/
http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/03/12/proof-of-delivery-of-cruz-eligibility-letter-received-from-texas-governors-office/
http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/04/11/exclusive-uscis-denies-foia-request-for-ted-cruzs-naturalization-papers-if-they-exist/
I’m not sure if I ever posted this on here, but this is now a 7-Part Cruz Citizenship History Lesson, and which now is turning into a book titled ‘Natural-Born American’. Due to length, each ‘Part’ will be listed as a separate post
The information provided below comes from ACTUAL HISTORICAL statements from the 14th Amendment & 1872 Citizenship Debate transcripts which are contained within ‘The Congressional Globe’; U.S. Supreme Court Rulings; Statements made by Cruz, his father, Alan Wilson interview, and other sources as found on online.
TED CRUZ & HIS ‘NATURALIZED’ CITIZENSHIP – A HISTORY LESSON:
PART 1: THE ACTS OF 1790, 1795 AND 1802:
Cruz keeps citing in his responses the Act of 1790 (long-standing U.S. Law) which did state that children born abroad to U.S. citizens (plural not singular) were considered ‘natural-born citizens’. HOWEVER what Cruz is NOT telling American citizens is that the Act of 1790 was REPEALED as in voided, voted out, nullified, NO LONGER LAW and REPLACED with the Act of 1795 which changedonly grants the ‘status of citizen’ NOT natural born to children born abroad to U.S.citizens (again plural). Why plural, because at the time these acts were written a woman with U.S. citizenship who had a child born abroad could not confer her U.S. citizenship onto her child – it could ONLY descend through the father. That right did not come into effect until the 1900s and only convey’s ‘citizen’ status ‘granted’ through naturalization process.
In 1802 Congress enacted the Naturalization Act of 1802 in quotes below. The section regarding ‘children’ born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States I have capitalized for quick reference. This Act, the Act of 1802 REPEALED ALL OTHER ACTS BEFORE IT. That means they are NO LONGER LAW, NO LONGER LEGAL STATUTE AND THEY WOULD ONLY PERTAIN TO CHILDREN DURING THE YEARS THAT THEY WERE IN EFFECT. In fact, the Act of 1802 AGAIN only GRANTED the status of ‘citizen’ to any child born previous to this Act:
“SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States ‘BE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS’ of the United States; ‘AND THE CHILDREN OF PERSONS WHO NOW OR HAVE BEEN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL THOUGH BORN OUT OF THE LIMITS AND JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES BE CONSIDERED AS ‘CITIZEN’ OF THE UNITED STATES’ Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed
SEC 5 And be it further enacted ‘THAT ALL ACTS HERETOFORE PASSED RESPECTING NATURALIZATION BE AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY REPEALED”
Additionally, ‘children born abroad’ has always been and is regulated under the U.S. Immigration and “Naturalization” Act which does NOT confer natural-born status on those children. U.S. law when Cruz was born in 1970 is the same as it is now:
a) upon the birth of a child born abroad the U.S. parents or parent MUST REPORT the birth to the U.S. Consulate who then will determine the child’s citizenship status;
b) If it is determined that the child can hold U.S. Citizenship a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and/or a U.S. Passport would/will be issued to the parents who MUST ALSO RENOUNCE THE child’s Canadian (or other country’s) citizenship AT THE SAME TIME.
c) If his mother did not report his birth to the Consulate, she and Ted Cruz had to do so before he reached Age 18 at which time he was required to take an ‘OATH OF ALLEGIANCE’ to the United States AND ‘RENOUNCE ANY PREVIOUS FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP’.
d) If he failed to do so by Age 18, then he loses the eligibility to claim U.S. Citizenship and the only way to acquire it is to go through the ‘normal naturalization process’ that EVERY IMMIGRANT COMING TO AMERICAN MUST GO THROUGH TO BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN.
Cruz has NOT produced his Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a very important document as it would clearly state that he held U.S. Citizenship, however he would only be a ‘naturalized’ citizen as it is again, governed under the Immigration & Naturalization Act, which ‘grant’s citizenship PROVIDED CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET (discussed in Part 5). One is NOT automatically ‘born’ with it, nor is it descended upon the child from the parent.
In January 2016, Ted Cruz in HIS OWN WORDS clearly stated that “I’ve never been naturalized,” said Cruz, the U.S. Senator from Texas who is among the front-runners for the party’s nomination. “It was the process of being born that made me a U.S. citizen.” (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cruz-idUSKBN0UM29R20160108)
This is coming from a man who is ‘supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer’ who knows full well that without a CRBA, without any ‘U.S. Naturalization’ papers, he HOLDS NO U.S. CITIZENSHIP WHATSOEVER.
It also MUST BE NOTED, that in 1970 Canada did NOT recognize Dual Citizenship and the parents of ANY child born in Canada who either both or one was a foreign parent HAD TO DECLARE UPON BIRTH WHICH CITIZENSHIP THEY CHOSE FOR THE CHILD. Canadian officials say Ted Cruz was (since renounced) a ‘natural born Canadian citizen’ and nothing else, and this can only mean that his mother claimed Canadian Citizenship for Cruz which is why he did not RENOUNCE said citizenship until May 2014.
Part 2: U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
A) 1971 SUPREME COURT RULING – Children BORN ABROAD ARE NATURALIZED CITIZENS
Per the SUPREME COURT in Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), a case where the birth circumstances (child was born to American mother and Foreign Father in Italy) were nearly identical to those of Cruz, their ruling was as follows:
“…Afroyim’s broad interpretation of the scope of the Citizenship Clause finds ample support in the language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bellei was not “born . . . in the United States,” but he was, constitutionally speaking, “naturalized in the United States.” Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. ANYONE ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP SOLELY UNDER THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.”
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”
B) U.S. Supreme Court Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
“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.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html
C)U.S. Supreme Court: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“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.”
D) U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING DEFINES ‘NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN’: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), U.S. Supreme Court of the United States Ruling was that a “child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen” and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
PART 3:HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (1866, 1872 and also in 1862):
The Constitution states the Congress shall only have the power to determine a ‘naturalization process’ for citizens and who will be classified under the process as U.S. Citizens. In order to determine who would be eligible to become naturalized U.S. Citizens, the House of Representatives had to define what a ‘natural born citizen’ was.
In 1862 During the 37th Congress Debate on the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
1866 during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
Additionally in 1872, Bingham again defined ‘natural-born citizen’ during a House Floor hearing regarding the status of U.S. citizenship of Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain. Here he clearly states 2 requirements for being natural born…born to parents (mother and father) and within the jurisdiction of the United States:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: “Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States…If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
In this Bingham cites 2 factors that declares Dr. Houard to be a “natural-born citizen”: born of citizen “parents” (plural not singular therefore requiring you to have 2 U.S. Citizen parents for this status) AND born within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.
PART 4: WHAT IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF MEAN?
In 1866 Senator Lyman Trumbull and Senator Jacob Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
“Senator Jacob Howard, an author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment told us exactly what that meant and defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?“
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum (issue) in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’
PART 5 – Ted Cruz’s background as we know it today:
‘Natural-born Citizen’ as defined by the very person responsible for the writing of the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham requires 3 things: that you are born within the jurisdiction of the United States, that BOTH parents are citizens of the U.S. either by naturalization OR by being natural born themselves AND that both parents must NOT owe ANY allegiance to ANY FOREIGN country.
CRUZ was born in Canada and NOT WITHIN THE REPUBLIC/JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Even if his mother was still a U.S. Citizen, his father WASN’T, thus per Bingham Cruz does NOT meet the requirement that BOTH parents MUST be U.S. Citizens and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen. His father was also a Canadian citizen and thus owed allegiance to Canada NOT the U.S. That disqualifies him. And if Cruz’s mother was a Canadian Citizen as the Canadian records indicate then its obvious that Cruz was not a natural born U.S. citizen at birth, but instead a Canadian citizen.
Cruz’s mother married Alan Wilson in 1959 and they moved to London, England in 1960. She divorced her first husband in 1963 (per Alan Wilson). and continued to live in England until sometime after the death of a child she had (out of wedlock), Michael Wilson (not Alan Wilson’s son – he says they were definitely divorced but agreed to allow her to use his last name for the child).
London records identify a Michael Wilson was born and died in 1966 and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, a London neighborhood. Eleanor then returns to Houston sometime in 1966 after the crib death of her son, where she meets Rafael Cruz. Rafael Cruz states that they moved to and were living in Canada sometime around 1966-1967 (he states they lived there for 8-years returning in 1975 so that makes it 1967. Canadian records show an address for them in 1975 in Calgary). He states he became a Canadian Citizen in 1968 and that he and Eleanor were married sometime around 1967-1968 (Ted says 1969) but where…Canada? Most likely. Non one can find a Marriage license for them here in the States.
Because Cruz’s mother lived in London from 1960 to sometime in 1966 after the death of her first son, and then almost immediately ends up in Canada with Cruz sometime around 1967, she CLEARLY did not meet the required 10-year physical U.S. residency requirement which requires that at least 5 of those years must be spent physically within the U.S. BEFORE the birth of the child. (Alan Wilson continues to live in London and is still a U.S. citizen.
As previously mentioned, at the time Cruz was born in 1970 Canada did not recognize dual citizenship and per their laws if you are born on Canadian soil (and even today in an airplane over Canadian airspace) you are a Canadian born citizen only (in 1970). Their dual citizenship clause was changed in 1977.
Additionally, there is a documented report that Cruz’s parents voted in the 1974 Canadian Federal elections as Canadian citizens. This document can be found in Canadian government online searches.
As for her possible Canadian citizenship, Canadian law at that time states that a foreign spouse (in this case Cruz’s mother) who was married to a Canadian Citizen (his father became one in 1968) and lived in Canada with said Canadian spouse (her husband) for 1-year AUTOMATICALLY became a Canadian citizen, which would account for the information that they voted in 1974 as Canadians and that their names appear as Canadian Citizens on the 1974 Canadian Election Voter list.
This could quite possibly be the reason why Cruz hasn’t produced a Consular Report of Birth Abroad to substantiate his U.S. citizenship because he doesn’t have one. It is up to the U.S. Consulate to determine Cruz’s birth citizenship and if his parents went to the Consulate to report it, the Consulate most likely refused to ‘grant’ U.S. citizenship based on the fact that Cruz’s parents were Canadian citizens by virtue of his father becoming one and his mother meeting the statute of being married to one and living in the country for the 1-year required time, as well as Ted being born on Canadian soil which makes him a ‘natural-born CANADIAN’ citizen just like Rand Paul stated. Per Canada, they stated Ted was/is a Canadian and nothing more.
It has become rather obvious that she did not report his birth OR OBTAIN a CRBA. How do we know this?
a) Cruz said his mother told him that he could claim his citizenship if he ever wanted to, but that he never pursued it and thought the matter was settled ‘which means she didn’t report or claim it at time of his birth’, and…
b) …Cruz renounced his citizenship in May 2014, ‘which again proves that his mother did not, per U.S. Immigration law report/claim his birth AND legally renounce his Canadian citizenship at the same time she reported her son’s birth IF the U.S. Consulate granted U.S. Citizenship which it is apparent they did not as Cruz would have had to…
c) …claim his U.S. Citizenship by age 18, RENOUNCE his Canadian Citizenship AND take an ‘OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.” If he didn’t, then after age 18 he would have to claim said citizenship through ‘normal immigration/naturalization process’ that all immigrants must go through to become a U.S. Citizen and it is apparent that he didn’t do any of that as he did not renounce his Canadian Citizenship until 2014.
SO THE QUESTION IS…if Cruz’s mother was DENIED U.S. Citizenship for her son by the U.S. Consulate OR; she did NOT report his birth in Dec 1970/Jan 1972 and Cruz himself did NOT claim his U.S. Citizenship by age 18 through the U.S. Immigration/Naturalization Dept AND RENOUNCE his Canadian Citizenship (which we know he did not as it was done in 2014) AND give an Oath of Allegiance to the U.S., AND if he did NOT do so AFTER age 18 which would require him to go through the entire Naturalization process per U.S. Law then…
“Senator Ted Cruz” Not only is an illegally sitting Senator, he also HAS NO U.S. AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AT ALL! NONE!
PART 6: MAINE GOV. PAUL LAPAGE PROVIDES PERSONAL SOLID PROOF THAT CHILDREN BORN ABROAD (CANADA) ARE ‘NATURALIZED CITIZENS’ NOT NATURAL BORN & NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRES/VP:
Maine Governor Paul LaPage recently announced that he was supporting Trump because he knew he was a natural born citizen whereas Ted Cruz wasn’t. How does he know this? Because his own 2-Daughters, born to 2 U.S. Citizens (LaPage & his wife) while living/working in Canada (for his job) had to have their births reported to the U.S. Consulate and had to claim their U.S. Citizenship through U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION and per authorities they are NOT Eligible to run for President as they are ‘naturalized U.S. Citizens’ NOT Natural Born.
Cruz only had “1″ U.S. Citizen Parent and that does not make him ‘natural born’. So, if the Governor of Maine’s children are not considered natural-born and a re only ‘naturalized’ so is Cruz and that makes him ineligible…and more…HE KNOWS IT!
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/bombshell-maine-governor-paul-lepage-endorsed-trump-because-hes-a-natural-born-citizen-and-eligible/
7-Part History Lesson on Natural-Born Citizen and ‘Ted Cruz”
PART 7: Another Government Official comes forward on Cruz ‘natural born issue’
SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN, SO HOW IS CRUZ ‘NATURAL-BORN’?
SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO (Hawaii) BORN TO AMERICAN MOTHER (who retained her U.S. Citizenship) AND JAPANESE FATHER IN JAPAN IS A ‘NATURALIZED CITIZEN’ WHICH MEANS CRUZ IS NOT A ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’:
“If Sen. Mazie Hirono is a Naturalized Citizen, How is Ted Cruz “natural born?”
(Mar. 24, 2016) — The junior U.S. Senator from the state of Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, is a naturalized citizen, according to her official biography.
Hirono, who ran against former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle for the seat in 2012, makes no secret of the fact that she was “an immigrant” naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1959, which coincided with the admission of Hawaii to the union as its 50th state.
Hirono was born on November 3, 1947 in Fukushima, Japan to a Japanese father and U.S.-citizen mother who apparently did not lose her U.S. citizenship. The senator’s life story states that her mother, Laura, left an abusive, alcoholic husband in Japan to return to her native land with her two young children. Mazie was seven years old at the time.
Some have speculated that, contrary to a claim made by Cruz’s U.S. Senate office to The Dallas Morning News, Cruz’s parents never registered him as a U.S. citizen born abroad at birth or shortly thereafter and that he became a naturalized citizen at some point, perhaps in 1986, when nearly 3 million illegal aliens were protected from deportation by a change in immigration law passed by Congress and signed by then-President Ronald Reagan.
Last week, a child born abroad to two natural born U.S. citizens, one of whom was serving as a corporal in the U.S. Army, provided his or her birth registration as recorded by the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service office in Germany in 1957. The individual additionally informed The Post & Email that when registering for the military him- or herself after high school, he or she was required to present a “Naturalization Certificate.”
How, then, can Ted Cruz claim to be a “natural born Citizen?”
FULL STORY HERE: http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/03/24/if-sen-mazie-hirono-is-a-naturalized-citizen-how-is-ted-cruz-natural-born/
UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN – LYIN’ CRUZ TRAITOR
http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/03/27/nalc-lead-attorney-documents-obtained-from-canada-on-ted-cruz/
CRUZ ENTERED U.S. ILLEGALLY IN 1974 AS “ILLEGAL ALIEN” AND WORKED IN OUR GOVT. AS “ILLEGAL ALIEN FOR YEARS!!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/report-ted-cruz-entered-us-illegally-1974/
STILL “ILLEGAL ALIEN” until Cruz became U.S. citizen 18 mos. ago and dropped his Canadian birth citizenship. Squatted on our land and worked in govt. as an “illegal alien.” He is more than ineligible to be Pres. and needs to be deported.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/politics/ted-cruz-canada-citizenship/index.html
How does an “illegal alien” get permission to sell our land to a ME country? Huh?
CRUZ SOLD SHELL OIL COMPANY IN HOUSTON, TX, TO SAUDI ARABIA ALONG WITH 14,000 ACRES OF LAND (to grow alfalfa) IN CA FOR 170,000 COWS AND THEN WE HAVE TO BUY MILK FROM SAUDI ARABIA??? WISCONSIN WAKE UP. AMERICA WAKE UP. CRUZ NEEDS TO GO!
https://youtu.be/E56N-ozqVm8
Okay, so this news is going to throw a wrench into everything…
Someone has obtained research from Ancestry.com and another legal source that shows the following:
Rafael Cruz and Julia Garza were married in 1959. Per Court Records she ‘filed for divorce in November 1996’ – Rafael says they were divorced 3-years after they were married.
Ancestry.com has Divorce documentation for Rafael Cruz and Eleanor Darragh Wilson as being divorce on February 13, 1997.
That is only a 4-month difference between Wife 1 filing for divorce and Wife 2 being granted a divorce!
It appears that Rafael had a wife in the United States AND a wife in Canada, which is most likely where the two married (if they did in fact married, and if they didn’t Ted Cruz is most definitely NOT a U.S. Citizen as an un-wed mother MUST HAVE LIVED THE YEAR PRIOR TO BIRTH IN THE U.S. – Eleanor lived in England from 1960 – Dec 1966 and then in Canada from 1967 to 1975. Does not meet physical residence in the U.S. for married (10-years prior to birth of child) or 1-year prior.
Is this something else Cruz is trying to hide. The fact that his father was married to 2 women at the same time?
The Post & Email addressed the discrepancy here: http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/04/22/a-piece-of-the-cruz-timeline/
It does appear that Rafael B. Cruz and Eleanor Darragh Wilson went to Canada when Rafael was still legally married to Julia Garza.
It would not surprise me if Cruz’s mother used the birth certificate of her dead child to bring Ted to the United States of America. That would be the reason to SEAL all his records !!!! There is no reason for the mother what Ted Cruz to not produce the records that allowed him to enter United States of America. My question is what records did he use to enter school?
Although he renounced his Canadian citizenship could Ted Cruz still be a Cuban citizen because his father was still a Cuban citizen at the time of Teds birth?
Leo Donofrio has done some great work on this topic, and cites Minor v. Happersett as the case that is relevant and on point that show both Obama and Cruz are ineligible. It is worth noting that the law site Justia manipulated and scrubbed references to this case because of its threat to expose this ongoing lie that currently occupies the Oval Office (and the one who seeks so succeed him).
Check it out: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html
Without trying to present factual information for it only to evolve in an endless list of comments and responses, back and forth, let me make one simple point. If there is a healthy dose of skepticism about Mr. Cruz Constitutional qualification to hold Office as POTUS why is it out of the question for him to present documents that reasonable citizens need to rest assured the candidate qualifies? We have Cruz Canadian Birth Certificate. We have the Cruz “Certificate of Renunciation of Canadian Citizenship.” Why can we not verify that his parents filed for and received a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad?”
The fact that the Supreme Court has articulated, with precision, what constitutes natural-born status in many of their findings beginning in 1814, not thirty years after the US Constitution’s creation, seems not to have any bearing at all. The fact that the Congress has brought forth eight Bills between 2003 – 2008 to modify or eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold Office as POTUS speaks volumes simply because of the timing; just prior to Obama arriving on the scene.
Why are we presented with so many candidates that educated citizens find unqualified?
Some of the documents you mention and post came from my blog articles. There is a document which showed that Michael Wilson was listed as a US citizen. I’ll try to post the link to the image. There are a few articles about this in my blog linked above.
Ted Cruz’s parents should have listed Ted as a US citizen born abroad. I have a feeling they probably didn’t so they could receive Canadian health insurance. At the time they intended to stay in Canada forever. They only left because the oil business was no longer booming.
The main purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause is because the founding fathers of the US did not want people from other nations controlling their country. A child born abroad by a US citizen either mother or father is considered a US citizen. The purpose was in case a citizen gave birth while on a short trip to another country. It was not intended for people who actually moved to and worked in another country. That is what Ted’s family had actually done.
mary cummins is updating her cruz information. a better link would be this one:
http://marycumminsrealestatemarycummins.blogspot.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-rafael-cruz-birth-certificate.html
there are errors in the “mother lode” link in the prior article which I believe have been or will be corrected.
Sharon, thank you so much for your amazing work.
The website below contains some information regarding possible British citizenship for Cruz’s mother.
http://running2016.com/html/canadian_ted.html
It states that Cruz’s mother might possibly have obtained British citizenship as the wife (either by marriage certificate or possibly by common law marriage) to the father of Michael Wilson. If this man were British, the law listed below would apparently apply.
“British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act – Part III – 10 National status of married women
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject. . .”
sharon,
i posted the rafael/julia separation and divorce documents on your site. they were divorced in 1968. a default was issued against rafael (my assumption was that he failed to respond to the petition for an absolute divorce filed by julia). it is also my assumption that rafael and eleanor had already split for canada before the petition for divorce was even filed. i wouldn’t be surprised that they were in canada shortly after the petition for separation was filed in 1967 because rafael also had a default issued against him, again probably for failure to respond to the petition for separation.
a real stand up guy who dumps his wife and children to skip the country avoiding conscription during viet nam while shacking up with eleanor. that is my conclusion after looking at documents and examining the timeline i have been able to put together.
and, oh, by the way, this is ted’s hero, the guy he looks up to and his go to guy for campaign speeches. can you just imagine this group in the white house?
Some questions & a comment. Cruz like Obama has sealed his records. I was under the impression that the sealing of public records required a Court order based on specific circumstances determined by the Court? I would think that any candidate for POTUS whose records are sealed & who refuses to release them should be disqualified from being a candidate for POTUS. Lastly four separate SCOTUS cases all defined the same requirements as to what constitutes a US natural born citizen, which makes it settled case law. Yet this is completely ignored. http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582
Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz Family Timeline being circulated by email this a.m. https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-tomerlin/rafael-edward-ted-cruz-family-timeline/998233746879858
There is a lot of information in that post. I noticed that it said that Rafael B. Cruz was married to Julia until 1996, but that cannot be possible, as his divorce from Eleanor was reportedly in 1996: http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Ted-Cruz-parents-divorce-docs.pdf
Great work, as usual, Sharon.
Cruz appears to be Obama2.0 and his parents operatives as well.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
So, anyone who knowingly and willfully violates the US Constitution is a criminal, right?
“natural born Citizen” is a wise 1789 mandate of the US Constitution.
Not a suggestion, but a standard of human behavior; a living mandate in 2016.
So, our nation’s entire governmental structure 08-28-08- TODAY is a syndicated tax-paid-for omerta-like criminal enterprise for openly, notoriously and continually deciding to actively silence the US Constitution’s living mandatory 1789 requirement, “natural born Citizen”.
ALL TALK AND NO SHOCK 08-28-08- TODAY has earned us zero victories relative to the open violation of the living 1789 definition of “natural born Citizen” (= Obama-Cruz living usurpations).
ID Thief-in-Chief Barry Soetoro-Barack Obama and his copy-cat ID Thief Rafael Cruz are Constitutional prisoners on furlough, fugitives-at-large, relative to their syndicated leadership in willfully and openly and notoriously violating the living legal 1789 meaning and intentions of the “natural born Citizen” mandate all during The Pelosi-Obama Sedated Sedition 08-28-08- TODAY.
So, why don’t we folks simply keep our tax payment dollars secure at our homes, en mass, until after Barry and Rafael are fully identified on humanity’s “knowledge equality” Internet, lest We the People continue to criminally fund the subversion of our own US Constitution?
ANSWER: WE THE PEOPLE 08-28-08- TODAY PREFER TO COMPLAIN LIKE WIMPERING DERELICTS RATHER THAN TAKE ACTION/CONTROL OF THE ONE THING WE CONTROL OVER THE NATION’S ENTIRE GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, BEING, THEIR LIFEBLOOD/OUR TAX DOLLARS!
Until We the People rise up from complicit IRRESPONSIBLE tax-paying subjects to RESPONSIBLE tax-withholding Citizens-With-A-Purpose en mass, we remain an entire disheveled nation of bankrupted complicit Constitutional criminals 08-28-08- TODAY!
Keep suffering, America 08-28-08- TODAY, We the People’s DERELICTION OF DUTY PAID FOR KNOWN CRIMINAL ID THIEF-IN-CHIEF SOETORO-OBAMA TO DELIVER HARM AND HUMILIATION TO US ALL…AND HERE’S OUR JUST REWARD, A GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ !
Excellent work, Sharon, as always. Here is my comment accompanying your link on FB groups:
“Here it is guys…Shocking (Not) parallels of obama and cruz birth narrative problems. Throw in his cuban father’s ties to oswald and bush oil and BINGO! You got it… george hw bush CIA and john brennan CIA and the NWO manufacturing of presidential PLANTS!”
http://marycumminsrealestatemarycummins.blogspot.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-rafael-edward-cruz-rafael.html?m=1
source and docs
this is from mary cummins site:
Here is legal citation, source for the death document if you need to include in a media article.
*Source Citation
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; General Records of the Department of State; Record Group: RG59-Entry 5166; Box Number: 49; Box Description: 1967 SU – Z
Source Information
Ancestry.com. Reports of Deaths of American Citizens Abroad, 1835-1974 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.
Original data:
Reports of the Deaths of American Citizens, compiled 01/1835- 12/1974. Publication A1 5166. NAI: 6138 57. Record Group 59. National Archives at College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
Record of Death Notices of U.S. Citizens Aboard, 1835-1855. Publication A1 848, NAI: 122 7672. Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21. The National Archives at College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
Notices of Deaths of U.S. Citizens Abroad, 1857-1922. Publication A1 849, NAI: 122 7673. Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21. The National Archives at College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
Description
This data collection contains death reports submitted by American Consuls abroad for the years 1835 through 1974. The intent of the compilation is to provide satisfactory proof of an American death. It does not include the deaths of active military personnel or of individuals whose citizenship status was unknown. Information that can be obtained from this database includes name of the deceased, place and date of record, occupation, nativity, last known address in the U.S., date of death, and other related information.”