Spread the love


by Creg Maroney, ©2016

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz insists he is a “natural born Citizen” despite his birth in Canada to a foreign-citizen father

(Jan. 28, 2016) — Donald Trump is right again!! Ted Cruz is NOT eligible for President. Cruz sealed his own fate with his own words. Here are the hard facts…

Ted Cruz ignorantly cites two things that he thinks qualify him to be a ‘natural born citizen.’

First: Ted states that the the Naturalization Act of 1790 gives him ‘natural born citizen’ status.

That might have been true if he was alive between 1790 and 1795. What he fails to mention is that the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the NBC status to children born beyond the borders of the United States to American parents and gave them just “citizen” status. To date no Naturalization Act has ever reinstated NBC status to those children. Plus the American “parents,” plural, would have been in question because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.

Naturalization Act of 1790 (in part) with the ‘natural born citizen’ wording:

“And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:”

Naturalization Act of 1795 with the ‘natural born citizen’ wording removed and replaced with just ‘citizen’ status:

“SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:”


Second: Ted Cruz keeps stating that the ‘Wong Kim Ark’ case gives him “natural born citizen” status. The problem with that is that he cites the case wrongly. Ask him if he understands the word “DICTA,” because that’s what he’s citing, not PRECEDENT.

“In the 17th century an Act of Parliament determined that all children who, during the period of war, were born out of his majesty’s dominions, and whose fathers or mothers were natural-born ‘subjects’ of this realm, were themselves natural-born ‘subjects.'” This act is what Cruz is relying on that was spoken about in the Wong Kim Ark case as *DICTA. The court eventually ruled that the children of non-citizen lawful permanent residents born in the United States are automatically U.S. “citizens.” NOT Article 2 ‘natural born citizens’ or ‘natural born subjects.’

Furthermore, we are not under British rule. That’s why the court did not set Precedent with what they cited as “DICTA.” We are not “subjects” under a king. We are equal.

Read the actual opinion of the court for yourself here…

169 U.S. 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark No. 18 (in part)

Argued: March 5, 8, 1897
Decided: March 28, 1898


“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution;”

Cruz’s 1790 Naturalization Act argument doesn’t hold water because of the Naturalization Act of 1795 to present.
And Cruz’s Wong Kim Ark argument is a total fail because that was not what the Court’s Precedent ruling was.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.