BY RELEASING ALL DOCUMENTATION FROM CANADA AND THE U.S.
by Sharon Rondeau
In regard to presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The requirement was changed from simply “a Citizen” at the “hint” of Founding Father John Jay, who wrote to Continental Congress presiding officer George Washington in July 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.
Many Americans who have studied the issue since Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility was questioned in 2007 have concluded that the “natural born Citizen” clause is one of “national security.”
Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 as evidenced by his Canadian birth certificate provided to The Dallas Morning News in August 2013. The resulting article, titled “Dual Citizenship May Pose Problem if Ted Cruz Seeks Presidency,” reported that Cruz was “at birth” born both a citizen of the U.S. and Canada.
Cruz’s father is from Cuba and reportedly became a Canadian citizen in 1973 while operating a seismic data-processing business during the oil-industry boom of the era. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz, was born in Delaware in 1934 and, according to her son, never became a Canadian citizen.
The U.S. State Department reports that according to current U.S. law, a child born to one U.S.-citizen parent “may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met.” In the instance of “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock,” the State Department reports that “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.”
“INA” refers to the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed by Congress in 1952.
Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz reportedly attended and graduated from Rice University, which may have allowed for her to transfer U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad by meeting the U.S. residency requirement.
A differentiation between the terms “U.S. citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is often not made by the media.
An individual born abroad to two “natural born” married parents in 1957 recently contacted The Post & Email to share the birth registration he or she was issued by the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service division. The person reported that in order to join the U.S. military in 1974, he or she was required to apply for and provide a “Naturalization Certificate” and FS-240, the birth registration document. “I am naturalized, and that is all Ted Cruz is,” the individual told us.
When The Dallas Morning News first reported that Cruz was born a dual citizen, Cruz’s U.S. Senate office denied the claim. “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. At the time, The News speculated that Cruz’s dual citizenship “may pose [a] problem if Ted Cruz seeks [the] presidency.”
Almost immediately following The News’s revelations, however, Cruz pledged to renounce his Canadian citizenship. “Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American,” Cruz was quoted as having said.
On August 20, 2013, The Washington Post reported that in addition to his automatic Canadian citizenship, “Cruz is also a U.S. citizen by virtue of his mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson who was born in Wilmington, Del. Whether or not this qualifies him for the White House remains uncertain.”
Nine months later, on May 14, 2014, Cruz applied to the Canadian government to renounce his citizenship, a process completed approximately 30 days later. Other than his birth certificate and renunciation confirmation, he has released no other documentation, and none as to his presumed U.S. citizenship.
During the nine-month period, some wondered why Cruz did not submit his application to renounce his Canadian citizenship immediately.
As to Zullo’s interest in the issue, at the direction of Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Zullo has headed a four-year investigation into the long-form birth certificate posted by the Obama White House on April 27, 2011 purported to be a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate allegedly held by the Hawaii Department of Health.
In an interview on Monday, Zullo told The Post & Email that “because of the matter that was brought to Sheriff Arpaio and the investigative work that followed, Zullo found the media’s handling of the Cruz birth narrative to be unnervingly analogous to that of the Obama birth narrative. “It would be insincere of me not to look into another situation simply because of political party association,” Zullo said, while stressing that he is doing so as a private citizen and lifelong Republican. “The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not investigating Ted Cruz,” he emphasized.
Zullo went on to explain that during his investigative research into Obama’s birth documents, he needed to research the “natural born” issue in-depth, as it would pertain to a possible motive to conceal certain facts and necessitate the creation of a fraudulent document. Zullo pointed to undeniable historical evidence that exists strongly indicating that “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution meant someone who was born either in the United States, a U.S. territory or to a U.S. official serving his country abroad.
Zullo said that he is concerned that Cruz may very well be deliberately misleading the public by omitting salient points relating to the “natural born Citizen” requirement and his own citizenship and eligibility status. Zullo was very candid in making it clear that he is a Trump supporter in the upcoming presidential election; however, as in the Obama investigation, his activity in the Cruz situation has nothing do with politics. Zullo’s sole motivation is to get to the truth on both issues.
When asked during campaign speeches about his eligibility, without identifying it, Cruz cites the Naturalization Act of 1790, the only congressional statute which made reference to “natural born citizens:”
…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:…
Both Ted Cruz and his father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, who has also been a guest on Gallups’s show attempting to settle questions about his son’s eligibility, are “outright disingenuous,” Zullo said. “Rafael’s intentional failure to disclose to Gallups’s listening audience that the 1790 Act was repealed and replaced five years later, omitting any reference to ‘natural born Citizens,’ destroys any notion that the repealed statute can be relied upon as evidence that the issue has been settled, as Mr. Cruz would like one to believe. The last time I checked, ‘repealed’ means to revoke or annul a law. It is utterly disingenuous to cite a statute that has been repealed as the foundational legal justification of your claim,” Zullo told The Post & Email.
The Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which stated that 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:
Naturalization Act of 1795:
“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:…”
“The problem for Cruz in his deceptive reliance on a repealed statute is not only disingenuous, but also legally and logically flawed,” Zullo continued. “History shows statutes about acquiring citizenship at birth have changed many times over the last 200+ years. In some former statutes, a mother could not convey citizenship to a child. In addition, at some points in our history, a woman marrying a foreign citizen would have caused her to forfeit her own U.S. citizenship by statute. There is no court in the nation that would allow enforcement of any repealed statute. Once repealed, it is as if it never existed going forward. Ted Cruz, as a Harvard-educated attorney who has argued successfully before the Supreme Court a number of times certainly knows better; there is no excuse,” Zullo said.
“This evidence flies contrary to the Cruz accession that he qualifies merely because his mother was a U.S. citizen at birth living abroad. While it is perhaps a fact that his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth whose own birthright citizenship could be conveyed to her son, the fact is that Cruz would be a citizen at birth by virtue of a congressional statute, and the Constitution cannot be defined or redefined by any statutory means. Therefore, his mother’s citizenship certainly does not convey Natural Born Citizenship to him or anyone else under the same circumstance,” Zullo said.
The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 and implemented on March 4, 1789. The “natural born Citizen” clause has never been changed by the process of amendment set forth in Article V. However, congressional efforts to remove the clause began in 1975 with Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, becoming more frequent since 2003. Zullo pointed out that “the very fact that there have been eight attempts to remove the “natural born Citizen” requirement by congressional resolution and not the required Constitutional amendment is a very strong indication that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ is an impediment to those who wish to seek the office of president who otherwise would not satisfy the requirement.”
Zullo stated that “it is painfully obvious that the attempts were made to circumvent the ‘natural born Citizen’ qualifier to hold the Office of the Presidency and open up the Presidency to any citizen, regardless of birthplace and/or parental lineage.” “It is obvious the members of this modern-day Congress clearly understand the meaning and limiting power of the natural born Citizen clause in the Constitution; otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to omit it if it was of no consequence,” he said.
“There is also the enlightening essay about Winston Churchill authored by Atty. Mario Apuzzo, an attorney I interviewed early on in the Obama birth certificate investigation,” Zullo continued, referring to an article posted on January 25 of this year which reveals that the famous British statesman‘s mother was a U.S. citizen who wed an Englishman, giving birth to her children in her adopted country. On November 30, 1874 in Great Britain, Churchill was therefore born into a situation similar to Cruz’s.
In his essay, Apuzzo explained:
Being born in 1874, the Naturalization Act of 1855, Section 1, Stat. 604, would have applied to Churchill when he was born. On February 10, 1855, Congress enacted “An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof,” (10 Stat.604). This Act stated, in part, that: “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.” Under that Act, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen fathers were considered as “citizens” of the United States. Under this Act, U.S. citizen mothers were not capable to transmit their U.S. citizenship to their children born out of the United States to non-U.S. citizen fathers. It was only in 1934 that Congress allowed U.S. citizen mothers to be able to make such children citizens of the United States.
Of Cruz’s claim to “natural born Citizen” status, Apuzzo countered with, “…being born in a foreign country, under jus soli (right from the soil), Cruz also from the moment of birth acquired citizenship and allegiance to the country in which he was born. Being born subject to a foreign power under U.S. law, i.e., being born in allegiance to a foreign power under U.S. law, disqualifies one from being a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President.”
In closing his article, Apuzzo related that in 1932, a reporter, with apparent knowledge that Churchill’s mother was a U.S. citizen, asked Churchill if he would ever aspire to seek the U.S. presidency, to which Churchill replied, “There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter.”
Zullo pointed to Widener University’s Delaware Law School professor, Mary Brigid McManamon, who wrote in a Washington Post editorial that as the child of a U.S.-citizen parent born in a foreign country, Cruz was “naturalized at birth” and therefore ineligible to serve as president. Others disagree and maintain Cruz meets the definition of “natural born Citizen.”
Cruz’s parents lived in Canada roughly from 1968 to 1974. Regarding the issue of allegiance as it pertains to Ted Cruz, Zullo said, “His father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, still a citizen of Cuba, sought to and did in fact become a Canadian citizen, which is evidence that his father had zero allegiance to the U.S. at the time of his son’s birth.”
“There was no compelling reason for him to assure that his son secured U.S. citizenship,” Zullo continued, “so the probability that his parents went to the U.S. consulate in Canada and registered him as a U.S. citizen born abroad with the State Department is highly unlikely, in my opinion.” He pointed to the fact that Cruz has not produced any documentation to the contrary. “My understanding is that there has to be some type of notification or naturalization process, and even if his parents did register him as a U.S. Citizen Born Abroad, he still would not be qualified to hold the Office of President.”
Rafael Bienvenido Cruz reportedly assumed Canadian citizenship in 1973. According to Cruz’s life story, the elder Cruz abandoned his wife and young child for Houston the following year. “She remained in Canada; obviously she was matriculated into Canadian society and felt comfortable remaining in Canada as a single mother,” Zullo commented. “There is evidence that her name has been found on a 1974 Canadian voter roll. The issue of her possibly renouncing U.S. citizenship and obtaining Canadian citizenship is still unclear but is certainly a possibility, and she has suspiciously remained silent on the issue,” Zullo said.
Invoking the questions over Sen. John McCain’s eligibility in 2008, Zullo offered:
“John McCain was a natural born citizen because McCain actually met two qualifiers. John McCain was both born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and born to parents who were both U.S. citizen, U.S. military personnel stationed abroad in service to their country in an official capacity. Detrimental to the Cruz argument is that the Constitutional meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ rejects Ted Cruz as being eligible due to the undeniable fact that he was born in Canada and not on U.S. soil or a territory thereof to a father who was not a U.S. citizen and to a mother who was a private U.S. citizen married to a non-U.S. citizen husband, neither of whom was serving in the Armed Forces at the behest of the U.S. government. It is an undeniable fact that Cruz was born on Canadian soil and neither of his parents were in service to the United States of America.”
Questioning Cruz’s Integrity
Zullo then pointed to two interviews, one with CNN in January 2016 and the other with Univision in 2013 in which Cruz was challenged on the issue of his eligibility. Zullo recalled that Cruz’s handling of the “natural born Citizen” question was strikingly similar to the dismissive way which Obama had displayed in the past, immediately raising his suspicions of Cruz. Zullo said he had expected Cruz, as an identified Constitutional scholar and brilliant lawyer, to provide in-depth, concise answers addressing his qualifications but has not. Additionally, Zullo noted a “disturbing deceptive technique” employed by Cruz while attempting to avoid and dismiss the topic.
[Univision Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmNSjKNkho#t=15]
Regarding the Univision interview, Zullo provided the following analysis:
Cruz is being questioned by journalist Jorge Gilberto Ramos, who himself became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2008. Ramos pressed Cruz on whether or not he planned to run for president in 2016 and if he is constitutionally qualified to do so. Ramos, being a newly naturalized citizen, understands that Cruz is not eligible and tells Cruz that the Constitution says he “can’t” be president.
During the interview, Cruz make an amazing admission that becomes very important three years later in 2016. As Cruz is being pressed about Democrats’ accusations that his actions on the government shutdown are staged due to his intentions to run for president, Cruz said, “There is a classic political strategy, that if you can’t defend the substance, you try to change the topic.”
Ramos went further by continuing to pressure Cruz on his “natural born” issue. “You were born in Calgary, Canada, so can you run for president? The Constitution says you can’t.” Cruz responded that his birth to a U.S.-citizen mother rendered him “a U.S. citizen by birth,” avoiding making the claim that he is a natural born Citizen. He instead reaffirms he is a U.S. citizen at birth due to his mother’s status.
Questioning Cruz yet again, the reporter tries to get Cruz to affirm that he is a natural born Citizen. Cruz, obviously uncomfortable, makes a subconscious, dismissive motion with his right hand. Cruz knows it is an issue that he can’t defend, nor does he want to try; he reaffirms only that he is “a U.S. Citizen by birth,” thereby avoiding a direct answer to the question.
Then, in another indication that the issue is not as clear-cut as Cruz would like us all to believe, he removes himself from the discussion by saying, “Beyond that, I’m going to leave it to others to worry about the legal consequences” should he decide to run. Cruz clearly recognizes there is a legal issue in 2013.
Fast forward to 2016…
Responding to a January 2016 interview with Dana Bash of CNN, Zullo pointed out that Cruz’s answer to the same question is now “fundamentally different.” “He is now identifying himself as a ‘natural born Citizen’ with no change is circumstance since the 2013 interview. When confronted, Cruz attempts to offer a more assertive and convincing argument,” Zullo said.
An excerpt of the conversation between Bash and Cruz reads:
Bash: Speaking of the Constitution, you may have heard that Donald Trump is bringing up the fact that you were born in Canada and saying that if you’re the Republican nominee, it could be held up in the court for two years. You’re a constitutional scholar; you’ve argued before the Supreme Court. Why do you think, on the legal basis, he’s wrong?
Cruz: The legal issue is straightforward: the son of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a “natural born Citizen.”
Zullo contends both these statements are false. “Cruz now claims that as the son of a U.S. citizen born abroad, he is also a ’natural born citizen.’ This distinction differs greatly from his 2013 claim where he was merely a U.S. Citizen at birth. Cruz now asserts that he is ‘natural born Citizen’ by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. He seems to have given himself a Constitutional promotion, thereby removing the obstacle to his political ambitions. And to his claim that the law is ‘straightforward,’ the law is anything but ‘straightforward,’ as Cruz has based his claim on a 226-year-old defunct statute,” Zullo said.
When Bash challenged Cruz on the merits of his claim, “Cruz forcefully defends the claim with an attempt to cloud the issue with unequivocal misrepresentations of the law and facts and then proceeds to dismiss the entire issue,” according to Zullo. “One deceptive behavior is that when the facts are not on a person’s side, he might employ a strategy of attempting to diminish the importance of the issue. As you will see, Cruz does just that later in the interview,” Zullo said.
Bash: But it’s never been tested; you know full-well because you’ve done it on other issues.
Cruz: Listen, the Constitution and laws of the United States are straightforward. The very first Congress defined the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad as a “natural born Citizen,” and by the way, many of the members of the first Congress were Framers at the Constitutional Convention. At the end of the day, this is a non-issue…
Zullo pointed out Cruz utilized the very political strategy he outlined in the 2013 interview three years earlier. “There is a classic political strategy, that if you can’t defend the substance, you try to change the topic.”
Cruz then told Bash, “I’m not going to engage in this, and the reason is simple: there are far too many serious issues facing this country. Last night, North Korea claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb. What the American people are looking for is who’s prepared to be commander-in-chief; who has the seriousness, who has the judgment, who has the knowledge, the clarity of vision…”
To Bash’s relating that Trump claimed Cruz had held or holds a Canadian passport, Cruz quickly said, “It’s not true.” When Bash asked, “Are you sure?” Cruz responded exasperatedly, “Yes, I’m sure.”
“He seems to be very, very good at reciting carefully-scripted talking points and saying them over and over and over again,” Zullo observed. “Cruz attempts to use manipulative, deceptive techniques whereby he creates an alternate reality by purposeful omission and repetition of inaccurate facts as if true and inaccurate depictions of events geared to change the opinion or confuse the listener. Throughout the campaign Cruz has referred to the issue as being ‘settled law’ and a ‘non-issue.’ This is simply not true.”
Zullo pointed to the fact that constitutional scholars differ greatly on the topic and the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” “However, if you listen to Cruz, just about every constitutional scholar agrees with him. The problem is he has absolutely no evidence to support that claim, especially given the fact that his own Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, does not agree with Cruz, and the matter has never been before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.”
“Cruz’s ever-subtle deception is accomplished by simply reciting a list of true facts while at the same time interjecting purposeful misrepresentation and/or omissions of key aspects of events, calculatingly omitting one or two material elements, that if included would change the characterization of the narrative and simultaneously defeat his own argument and convey the listener to an entirely different conclusion. Cruz is being purely deceitful,” Zullo said.
Zullo believes that should the eligibility issue not be settled prior to the nomination this summer, Cruz will assuredly face numerous legal challenges questioning his eligibility to hold office, if he is in fact the nominee. Zullo also is concerned that the electorate is possibly being disenfranchised by casting votes for a nominee who may very well not be constitutionally eligible to hold office.
Drawing a difference from Obama’s situation, Zullo said, “There is no dispute as to where Cruz was born. He admits he was born in Canada and he produced a valid document substantiating that fact. It is right in your face.” More important, however, is that Zullo fears that the Constitution will be forever changed should Cruz be elected to office under the current circumstance. “The legal precedent that would occur will forever invalidate the Article II protections,” he said.
“By allowing individuals born to one U.S.-citizen parent and raised abroad, who have adopted the values and allegiances of a foreign country to one day immigrate to the U.S. and attempt to attain the Presidency of the United States, would open the door to a dangerous precedent,” Zullo told us.
According to Zullo, if Cruz wishes to validate his assertion that “the truth matters,” hd should petition the governments of Canada and the United States to publicly release all of the documentation pertaining to not only his citizenship and passport status in both countries, but that of his mother as well.
“Cruz should have nothing to hide; this should be remedied in a matter of days,” Zullo said. “The unsettling fact is that America is being deceived over this issue, and we are at the cusp of a constitutionally-changed perception and a precedent to be set if foreign-born Ted Cruz, complete with foreign admission, a foreign birth certificate, born on foreign soil, to a then-Cuban-citizen father having zero allegiance to the United States of America at the time of his birth is allowed to become president of the United States under such circumstances without full legal challenge.”
Zullo stated that Cruz, as a self-proclaimed defender of the Constitution, constitutional originalist and “principled conservative,” should “jump” at the opportunity to clear up the questions surrounding his eligibility. “To do anything else raises serious concern as to the honesty and integrity of Ted Cruz,” Zullo said.