If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by Sharon Rondeau, h/t GW

U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono was sworn in as Hawaii’s junior senator on Jan. 3, 2013

(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.

Hirono attended the University of Hawaii and eventually Georgetown University Law School.  After working as an attorney in the office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Ms. Hirono decided to enter public service and successfully ran for the Hawaii House of Representatives, serving seven consecutive terms.  She also served as Hawaii’s lieutenant governor from 1994 to 2002 under Gov. Ben Cayatano.

On November 6, 2012, the Wall Street Journal’s “Japan” section reported that Hirono, who had served in the U.S. House of Representatives from January 3, 2007 to January 3, 2013 from Hawaii’s Second District, had won the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Sen. Daniel Akaka, who retired.

An article used as a source for the publication “Asian American Society: An Encyclopedia” is titled “The Immigrant Congresswoman.”

Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires that U.S. senators and representatives be “a citizen of the United States” in order to serve.

As a result of her personal experiences, Hirono is a strong advocate of “immigration reform” and the concept of keeping family members who might be affected by any legislation united.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who declared himself a presidential candidate one year and one day ago, was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a U.S.-citizen mother and a Cuban father. His life story relates that after his father left his mother and him to resettle in Houston as a Canadian citizen, the elder Cruz reconsidered his decision and reunited with his wife and son in Houston in 1974.

It is unreported on what basis the young Cruz and his mother were able to enter the U.S. at the time.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen.” When questioned by a reporter in 2013 about any plans to seek the presidency given the “natural born” requirement, Cruz would say only that having been born to a U.S.-citizen mother in a foreign country, he held U.S. citizenship.  When pressed as to whether or not he is a “natural born Citizen,” by the reporter, Jorge Ramos, himself a naturalized U.S. citizen, Cruz dismissively said that he would “leave it to others to worry about the legal consequences” should he decide to run.

Earlier in the same year, Fox News’s seasoned political reporter, Carl Cameron, stated that Cruz was ineligible to run given his birth in Canada.

Cruz now insists that a child born abroad to one U.S.-citizen parent is a “natural born Citizen.”  In an interview in January, Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash that “The legal issue is straightforward.  The son of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a ‘natural born Citizen,'” although relying on the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795 and omitted the1790 reference to “natural born Citizens.”

Cruz eventually told Bash during the interview, “I”m not going to engage in this” as a result of what he said were more pressing issues facing the American people.  Barack Hussein Obama had said something similar on April 27, 2011, the day his long-form birth certificate was posted on the White House website.  The image was later found by criminal investigators to be a “computer-generated forgery.”

An essay written by two former solicitors general published just days before Cruz announced his candidacy makes the case that Cruz is eligible, regardless of his place of birth or foreign-citizen father.  However, the authors, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, admit that “for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve.”

While some attorneys and legal scholars claim that Cruz is eligible to be president, citing “an emerging consensus” on the issue, other constitutional and legal scholars disagree, citing Cruz’s foreign place of birth and foreign-citizen father. Many Americans who have studied the “natural born Citizen” issue since questions arose about Obama’s eligibility in late 2007 believe that the Founding Fathers included the term of art in Article II at the urging of John Jay to protect the nation’s highest office from foreign influence.

Rep. John Bingham, considered the author of the 14th Amendment, stated that a man imprisoned in Spain who was born in the U.S. to citizen parents was a “natural born Citizen.”  In March 2011, then-Atty. Leo Donofrio quoted Bingham’s exact words:

“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.)

From the new nation’s earliest days through 1922, an immigrant woman who married a U.S. citizen became a U.S. citizen herself; therefore, the condition of “dual citizenship” did not exist at the time.

When Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, dual citizenship was not recognized there.

Although The Dallas Morning News reported in August 2013 that Cruz was born with both U.S. and Canadian citizenship on December 22, 1970, Cruz has produced no documentation supporting that contention. Through numerous FOIA requests made to the U.S. government and inquiries made to the Canadian government over the last year, The Post & Email has been able to acquire only one page of documentation bearing Cruz’s name, a Selective Service registration form reportedly generated after Cruz applied for federal financial aid to attend college.

While a growing number of citizens and this publication have clamored for Cruz to release documentation of his claimed U.S. citizenship at birth, Cruz has continued to campaign and win primary delegates without providing a response.

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?”

In her life narrative, Hirono states, “With my background and experiences, I never forget where I came from or who I fight for and why.”

Join the Conversation


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.

  1. Two things that cannot be legislated are wisdom and common sense. Vattel’s Laws of Nations played a critical role in design and writing of our Constitution and according to Vattel, a “natural born citizen ” had to be born of parents both of whom were themselves citizens at the time of birth. In all other cases, the child assumes the citizenship of the father.
    Since natural born also relates to place of birth “Of the soil”, it would seem to mean only on the soil of the U.S.. Common sense further leads Vattel to say that being born on a possession of the native country or on a ship on the high seas would also be considered to be “of the soil”. Wisdom would lead us to John Jay’s
    insistence that loyalty to the land of birth that comes from two citizen parents is necessary to insure the loyalty to the land of birth and not split between two countries. Court rulings can and have been wrong. Simply stated, the Constitution requires a person to be born of two citizen parents on U.S. “soil”.
    If only the father is a citizen, the child is a naturalized citizen. If the mother only is a U.S. citizen, the child inherits the citizenship of the father. The circumstances of the times have to be acknowledged . The country was in danger of collapse under the Articles of Confederation and foreign influence was rampant. Many citizens of the U.S. were still British loyalists .

  2. Canadian Citizenship Act 1947 – PAY ATTENTION TO LAST LINE ‘Grant of citizenship to foreign woman’ which applies to Cruz’s mother who lived with Cruz from 1967 – 1975, was married to him (1968-69 according to Cruz’s father & Cruz) at least 1-year prior (more likely 2-years) to Cruz’s birth.

    Acquisition and loss of citizenship under the Act

    In addition to those people who became Canadian citizens upon the coming into force of the Act (popularly known as the “1947 Act” due to the year it came into force), citizenship afterwards was generally acquired as follows:

    birth in Canada (except where neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident and either parent is a representative of a foreign government, their employee, or anyone granted diplomatic privileges or immunities)

    naturalization in Canada after five years’ residence as a landed immigrant

    grant of citizenship to a foreign woman married to a Canadian man after one year’s residence as a landed immigrant

    By Canadian Law, his mother became a Canadian Citizen by marriage and in order to be recognized as such she had to relinquish American citizenship as Canada did not recognize dual citizenship.


    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!


  4. No – Cruz did NOT receive automatic U.S. Citizenship at Birth. U.S. Citizenship/Naturalization laws state that they “MAY ACQUIRE” U.S. Citizenship If CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. If they aren’t met, no citizenship.

    Current Law: Volume 12 – Citizenship & Naturalization, Part H – Children of U.S. Citizens
    Chapter 3 – United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

    A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth​

    A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.​ [1]

    In general, a person born outside of the United States MAY ACQUIRE citizenship at birth if:​

    ​•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and​

    •The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.​ [2] ​

    Until the Act of October 10, 1978, persons who had acquired U.S. citizenship through birth outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements to retain their citizenship. This legislation eliminated retention requirements for persons who were born after October 10, 1952. There may be cases where a person who was born before that date, and therefore subject to the retention requirements, may have failed to retain citizenship.​ [4]

    ​An officer should determine whether a person acquired citizenship at birth by referring to the applicable statutory provisions and conditions that existed at the time of the person’s birth. These provisions have been modified extensively over the years.​

    ORIGINAL 1952 LAW (covers Cruz Birth 1952 – 1986)
    7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
    (CT:CON-317; 12-08-2009)
    a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

    From: http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

    “On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “1952 Statute”) became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.

    In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. “Physical presence” was different from the concept of “residence” which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.

    The physical presence requirement was intended to preclude extended absences from the United States during the required period. However, it was found to be too restrictive. In 1966, Congress passed an amendment which, for children born on or after December 24, 1952, permitted the transmitting U.S. citizen parent to count presence abroad in the following capacities towards the physical presence requirement:

    honorable service in the United States Armed Forces;
    employment by the United States Government;
    employment by an international organization with which the United States is associated; or
    physical presence abroad as a dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person employed in one of the above categories.”

  5. There is only one way to find out that his mother did not become a Canadian citizen like her so called husband is to check her tax filings . uS law Requires that US Citizens file income tax returns no matter where in the world they live. Did she file for the years she lived in Canada and the almost ten years she lived in England. Her X husband said she lied when she said the child she had and died was his and was surprised that she used his name as still her name on Teds birth certificate.
    Ted has these records sealed, why is that ?

  6. @CEHughes – – “By definition “collective naturalization” is when an entire group of people are naturalized at the same time.”

    It also covers those who belong to a “class” of persons conferred citizenship by Congressional enactment. This is what Justice Gray was alluding to in the passage from his opinion in the US v. Wong Kim Ark case that I cited before.

    As a point of illustration, Part 1 of 8 USC CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III: NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION is titled “Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization”. This portion of US Code encompasses 8 USC 1401 [under which Ted Cruz acquired his citizenship] through 8 USC 1409. [See: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title8/chapter12/subchapter3&edition=prelim%5D Apparently Congress seems to think portions of this section of the US code confers citizenship by collective naturalization.

    More to the point, rather than to argue semantics over the definition of “collective naturalization”, as I pointed out in my earlier post, our higher courts have consistently indicated for well over a century that foreign born children of citizens whose citizenship is wholly statutory are considered by members of our higher courts to be “naturalized” citizens.

    The Constitution only empowers one body to “have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact …” Consequently, even if there’s a conflict between how an agency of the federal government interprets a term or statute and how the Supreme Court interprets that term, the greater Constitutional authority on that question Constitutionally resides with the Court. Thus far, I have yet to see anyone cite either specific language in the Constitution or specific language in a majority opinion from the Supreme Court in which either has indicated that foreign born children of US citizen parents are considered to BE “natural born citizens.”

  7. Here is what the newest State Department Foreign Affairs Manual

    7 FAM 1131.6-2 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
    (CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016)

    Section 201(g) NA and section 301g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Accordingly, U.S. citizens who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) are not considered “naturalized” citizens under either act.

    This is identical to previous versions going back to at least the 1998 version.

    Here is a 2000 Slate article on non-citizens serving in the military.


    And here are the requirements for someone without a CRBA to obtain a U.S. Passport.

    Foreign Birth Documents + Parent(s) Citizenship Evidence

    If you claim citizenship through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s), but cannot submit a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth, you must submit all of the following:

    Your foreign birth certificate (translated to English),

    Evidence of citizenship of your U.S. citizen parent,

    Your parents’ marriage certificate, and

    A statement of your U.S. citizen parent detailing all periods and places of residence or physical presence in the United States and abroad before your birth.


  8. @Bruce McKay

    By definition “collective naturalization” is when an entire group of people are naturalized at the same time. This did not happen to Cruz. The State Department does not consider someone in Cruz’s situation to be a naturalized citizen.

    1. Do we know that for certain? A reader born overseas to two natural born U.S. citizens, with the father serving in the Army at the time, reported that he had to be “naturalized” and was asked for proof of same when applying to join the military himself 17 years later: http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/03/21/child-born-to-two-natural-born-citizens-overseas-shows-birth-certificate-affirms-i-am-naturalized/

      With Cruz born in a foreign country to one citizen parent (that is the narrative Cruz has provided), do we know for sure that he was not, in fact, naturalized? Since he will not address the question, it appears we do not.

  9. @CEHughes – – “Cruz was a citizen at birth and never had to naturalize.”

    While it’s true that Sen. Cruz did not apparently undergo either judicial or administrative naturalization, he was eligible for collective naturalization under the laws in place at the time he was born. Our higher courts have long recognized foreign born children of US citizen parents who acquire their citizenship through statutory law as “naturalized” citizens. For Example:

    In 1898, Supreme Court Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark stated “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, … by authority of Congress, exercised … by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens …” [See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649%5D That statement clearly indicates that children of citizens who are born outside US Territory, who gain their citizenship by Congressional statute are naturalized. In other words, simply having citizen parents isn’t enough to make a natural born citizen!

    In 1951, Chief Judge Phillips in delivering the opinion in the case of Zimmer v. Acheson for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said of someone who was born outside the United States to two US citizen parents, acquiring their citizenship under Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401), that the nature of their citizenship “status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.” [See: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/227742/zimmer-v-acheson-secretary-of-state/?q=ZIMMER+v.+ACHESON&type=o&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc%5D

    In 1956, Judge Hamley, in delivering the opinion in the case of Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles for the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a case pertaining to two men born outside the United States to a naturalized US citizen father, noted that Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401) is “a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.” [See: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/240243/wong-kam-wo-and-wong-kam-yin-v-john-foster-dulles-/?q=Wong+Kam+Wo+%26+Wong+Kam+Yin+v.+Dulles%5D

    And in 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who just 4 years earlier had written the majority opinion in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, had the following observation to make of foreign-born children of US citizens; “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.”

    Such are the circumstances by which Ted Cruz’s citizenship was acquired. His citizenship, based on guidelines given by members of our higher courts, consistently, for well over a century, is wholly statutory. As such, he is a “naturalized citizen” and thus is ineligible to legitimately hold either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States.

  10. @Naturalized Citizen You do not need to naturalize to join the military. Non-citizens have always been allowed to enlist in the US Armed Services.

    @Boris Nudelman Senator Hinoro could not be a Natural Born Citizen because she was not a citizen at birth. She had to naturalize after she moved to the US in 1955. Cruz was a citizen at birth and never had to naturalize.

  11. The only official vetting any candidate gets is to fill out a form when they send in their filing fee. The form ask if they are a natural born citizen. If they say yes, they are good to go. That’s why we have Obama, and candidates Cruz/Jindal/Rubio and others who are clearly not NBC.

    Once in, no one can do anything about the ineligible candidate, they lie, obfuscate and BS their way with outrageous stories of why the are, they say, NBC. Anyone who tries to take it to court has their attempt thrown out due to lack of standing, filed too late, no jurisdiction, Congress must decide, or whatever reason the court sees as most convenient.

    The ability for Lying Ted and others to do this comes from this, which must be changed:

    This is how we got Obama and his brain, Valerie Jarrett and the influx of Muslim Brotherhood members into the Obama regime. Those “employed” by the president and/or vice president do not have to get a security background check either. Remember the ‘Green Czar” Van Jones. He did step down after a video showing him saying he was a Communist. None of Obama’s many czars were required to have a background check for that position. Also, the only real “vetting” done of presidential candidates is for them to fill out and sign a form saying they are eligible. Think they would lie? Convicted felons are also not prevented from serving in elected offices. I am betting the majority of Americans believe exactly the opposite of this reality.
    This flawed system allowed enemies of America to take over at the highest level of government and to assume control of, and weaken, her military. These enemies must have been shocked at how easy this was. Fighting against a One World Government is made impossible, and effectively, we are already there.

    Please read these links and share with others:

    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf page 7



    And here is the link to the 4 minute video I mentioned, please watch. The guy in the video has a way with words…you will enjoy.

  12. Who can answer only one question: Why U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono will NOT stand up from her seat in the Senate, go to the podium and ask all Senators on the Senate floor – WHY Senator Ted Cruz is “natural born citizen” and she is not?

  13. CEHughes, Cherry picking statutes isn’t going to make your case. You have to look at the whole. As stated in this article a person born overseas of not one but two American citizens had to obtain a Naturalization certificate upon entering military service. Being born outside US soil makes you a naturalized citizen not natural born, to be natural born you MUST be born on US soil of citizen parents. Ted Cruz has yet to show his US birth certificate, Form FS-240. He was more than willing to show his Canadian birth certificate. Which begs the question does he have one. I suspect he doesn’t. Was he part of the general amnesty under Bush. When his natural born status came into question he sealed his records.

  14. Her mother didn’t meet the residence requirement to pass citizenship to her. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, her mother needed to reside in the United states for ten years with five of those years occurring after the age of 16. Her mother, Sato Laura Chie was born in Hawaii in 1924. She and her mother (the senator’s grandmother) moved to Japan in 1939. Sato Laura Chie would have been 15 years old. Senator Hirono would have fallen under Section 313 and needed to naturalize.

    In Senator Cruz’s case his mother met the residence requirement of the 1952 immigration and Nationality Act Section 301 (a) (7). And so he would not need to naturalize under Section 320 of the 1952 Act