Here's why the firestorm over Ted Cruz's Canadian birth is nothing like the Obama 'birther' controve

[applegrove]

Here's why the firestorm over Ted Cruz's Canadian birth is nothing like the Obama 'birther' controversy

by Brett LoGiurato at Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-birther-donald-trump-obama-2013-8

"SNIP..............


Cruz first released his birth certificate to The Dallas Morning News in 2013. The day after, he said in a late-night statement that he would renounce his Canadian citizenship. Amid the latest firestorm, his campaign released his mother's birth certificate to the conservative website Breitbart on Friday.

Back in 2013, Trump said that Cruz was "perhaps not" eligible to run for president. Trump was once one of the most prominent people questioning the birthplace of President Barack Obama, who eventually released his long-form birth certificate in 2011.

But the questions about Cruz have little, if any, comparison to the conspiracy theories about Obama's birthplace. The "birtherism" that dogged Obama stemmed from the fact that his father was born in Kenya. But Obama's mother was born in Kansas and Obama himself was born in Honolulu, according to his birth certificate, though many conspiracy theorists are skeptical about the document.

Cruz's situation is quite different, in that he was actually born outside the US. He was born in Calgary, Alberta, to a father from Cuba and a mother from Wilmington, Delaware.



.................SNIP"

[applegrove]

1. Cruz knew there would be a question so he got out ahead of it. Obama had no way of knowing

or predicting his case would become an issue because it was a fiction put out by the right who did not want the base to enjoy a great president and a black one at that. Might change the base's hearts and then where would the GOP be?

[beveeheart]

53. Exactly what you said,

Applegrove! Thanks.

[underthematrix]

2. Yes which may be why

the racists worked so hard at trying to build a narrative that President Obama was born in another country when he was in fact born in the US.

We need to find out if Cruz has a US selective service number. All US male citizens are required to get one.

[earthside]

4. Good point. n/t

[Snobblevitch]

7. That is not true.

My oldest brother was not required to register with the Selective Service. Another brother was among the first to be required to register.

[underthematrix]

10. This registration has been in effect since 1959.

https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration
https://www.sss.gov/Portals/0/PDFs/WhoMustRegisterChart.pdf

[Snobblevitch]

11. No, registration with SS was reinstated in the summer of 1980.

For several years prior to that, there was no law requiring registering with SS. It was a result of the debacle that was the war in Vietnam.

Edit to add:

Registering with the SS does not give those registering a 'number'. They are registering wirh SS, not registering for a draft, which does not exist.

[murielm99]

12. Correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

My son told me he had to register if he wanted financial aid for college. They would withhold it otherwise.

[underthematrix]

17. There has not been a draft in the US since 1973

registering with the selective service is not a draft. You brought up draft as if registering with the Selective Service was a draft.

You are wrong

Under current law, all male U.S. citizens are required to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In addition, non-U.S.-citizen males between the ages of 18 and 25 (inclusive) living in the United States must register.

I provided you with a link of those individuals and circumstances that would be exempt from such registration. Onnce agin it is not a draft.
If you are a male, and did not register with the selective service as prescribed and were not exempt, you cannot participate in any federal student loan program.

[Snobblevitch]

19. You need to go back and read my posts.

I only brought up the draft by saying registering with SS is NOT The same as registerimg for the draft. My older brother dod NOT register for either. He was not required to by law. What am I missing here? What are you not understanding?

[underthematrix]

20. yes. Some males are exempt

[Snobblevitch]

21. Yes, some were exempt from registering with Selectivr Service.

Every single male in the U.S. that were my brother's age were exempt. There was NO law that required him, or anybody else, to register with SS. Why are you not understanding this?

[underthematrix]

24. I understand your brother and all males who were born the same year did not have to register with

the Selective Service.

[Snobblevitch]

27. I think it was all males who were in about a seven year period.

The actual point of my first point in that Ted Cruz does not have a Sective Service number, although I would be surprised to learn that he did not fill out that postcard when he was 18.

Back when registering with Selective Service was reinstated in 1980, it was a pretty big deal. The Vietnam War was still recent and as I remember, the only guys who went into the army were those that had few other options. The other branches of the military were held in higher regard.

[underthematrix]

34. All males born in 1957, 1958 and 1959

I think this is what it so confusing:
On March 29, 1975, President Ford signed Proclamation 4360 (Terminating Registration Procedures Under Military Selective Service Act), eliminating the registration requirement for all 18- to 25-year-old male citizens.[20]

1980 to present[edit]
On July 2, 1980, President Carter signed Proclamation 4771 (Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act) in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,[21] retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18- to 26-year-old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960.[22] As a result, only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from Selective Service registration.[23]

[Snobblevitch]

38. I was not confused.

At a time when military service was not a popular option for young men (academies excepted) my brother was not expected to be possibly chosen to serve.

[underthematrix]

43. I was not saying you were confused. I was saying the way the historical information was

presented was confusing.

[Tab]

72. I was born in the very early 60's

and had to register.

[KG]

22. not true. no requirement for selective service reg for many years after 'nam.

[Iliyah]

3. Cruz is not eligible to run for Prez

GOPers know it but don't care and truly believe they are above rules and laws of the land.

[onenote]

5. You seem awfully certain of that

I'm curious what your credentials are that would cause me (or anyone else) to accept your opinion on this?

[underthematrix]

6. Yep

[murielm99]

13. I think the jury is out on that one.

First there has to be an establishment of who has the standing to question his right to run. That is a legal question.

[anigbrowl]

35. I'm sure that he is.

Nobody questions the fact of his mother's citizenship, and having a US citizen parent has long been sufficient for anyone to get a US passport. Anyone who claims otherwise is basically making shit up. this isn't legal advice, but it is a legal topic I take a particular interest in and have researched in depth.

[TeddyR]

57. Getting a passport

Isn't that same as "natural born citizen." Lots of folks qualify for a passport who are certainly not "natural born citizens." If you were born in the US you are certainly "natural born," if not then the issue becomes less clear. I've also done some reading on the issue and wonder what sources you have.

[anigbrowl]

64. In brief

The 'natural born' thing is a hot topic among nativists, parrtly because of anti-Oabama birtherism. As authority these folk like to cite Emer de Vattel's Law of Nations as if it were legal precedent, based on the fact that some of the founding fathers admired the work and its status as a founding text of international law. However the arguments they offer for relying on this at law invariably fall apart on close inspection. This text appeals to them because de Vattel assumed that citizenship was transmitted by blood rather than place of birth, and people who get their panties in a wad over 'anchor babies' like to argue that merely having been born somewhere is insufficient to confer citizenship status.

I should have been a bit clearer when I mentioned 'getting a passport' - what I meant was that Cruz's mothers citizenship was sufficient documentation for him to be automatically granted a US passport, as opposed to having to go through some legal process first as someone (like me for example) would have to in order to become a naturalized citizen. For a long time now the reality has been that either you are born with US citizenship or you acquire it through naturalization, which makes you equivalent* to someone who was born with it. Arguing that Cruz's citizenship is some in-between status requires suddenly creating a third category of citizenship, for which there is no support in law. (You could even argue that it requires 4 or even 5 categories, if you want to split people into groups depending on whether they have 1 or 2 citizen parents, as well as whether they were born in the US or not.)

In a nutshell, I'm saying that the phrase 'natural born' is tautological, not least because the legal act of naturalization confers citizenship status equivalent that acquired birth. My strong belief is that the phrase was not intended to connote passing occult citizenship, but to distinguish between family relationships - adoptive children of US citizen parents must apply for citizenship via the naturalization process, whereas their biological children would not. (now that I consider this, I am surprised there hasn't been a case by now involving confusion about citizenship involving IVF or surrogate pregnancy). This would have been more of an issue at the time the country was founded, when women were far more likely to die in childbirth and informal adoption was more widespread.

* Almost. Naturalized citizenship can be revoked under certain very limited circumstances.

[TeddyR]

66. I agree

That de Vattel has nothing to offer on the issue, but the fact is that English common law (which is the foundation for the Constitution), distinguished between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen." Someone born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of their parents (unless the parents were ambassadors and owed allegiance to some other country) was "natural born." Someone born in Canada to a US mother and foreign-citizen father, a little less clear. Yes, that person might be eligible for citizenship, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean they are natural born. Anyway, I think this is a fairly interesting and technical issue.

[anigbrowl]

69. It is interesting

Although I've been thinking about this on and off for years the adoption reason only crystallized in my head this morning (so thanks for stimulating that notion!). I'm going to set up a small bet with myself that the matter will turn on that issue if it is ever litigated. It's just too bad that we have to have this discussion in the context of such an odious person as Ted Cruz

[Bonx]

41. Sure he is. This narrative is stupid.

[rusty quoin]

8. I think the difference is Democrats want to debate policy.

Republicans will do anything but that to win, because they only want tax cuts for the rich, and no regulation for large corporations.

[applegrove]

9. Exactly.

[ecstatic]

14. If his mom became a Canadian citizen before he was born, then

he's not eligible.

[pnwmom]

15. If his mother renounced her US citizenship prior to become Canadian,

prior to having Ted, as some reports claim, then he wouldn't be a citizen.

:

[ecstatic]

18. Not only that, but wouldn't he need to resign from the Senate?

He would be the undocumented worker that the GOP loves to complain about. And since he recently renounced his Canadian citizenship, I'm guessing the only other country that might let him in is Cuba, based on his dad's former citizenship there.

Of course, Cruz could always apply for U.S.citizenship, but he'd have to go to the back of the line and pay a fine.

[former9thward]

50. Maybe you could link to those "reports".

[pnwmom]

52. She would have had to in order to be a registered voter, and her name is

listed somewhere as an eligible voter.

[former9thward]

62. Both countries allow dual citizenship

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/dual-citizenship-united-states-canada.html

[KentuckyWoman]

16. He's not brown.

Trump will have a little fun with it as well as the RW bloviaters. However, you will never see Cruz become the boogie man. That crazy birther uncle who thought Satan and Obama's mom were in cahoots won't be blabbering any of that crap now that a white guy is on the hook.

[Reter]

23. Question: What happens if in October it's ruled he's ineligible?

Let's say he won the nomination, and his VP is Rand Paul. With just a month to go before the general election, does Paul become the nominee, or do party bosses pick an entirely new ticket?

[Liberal_in_LA]

25. Yep

[frizzled]

26. Why should any US citizen not be eligible to serve as president, though?

It seems unjust to have a very large number of Americans be second-class citizens who cannot ever be President. Surely all citizens should be equal.

[Snobblevitch]

28. When the U.S. Constitution was being

debated and written, the Continental Congress decided that people born in a foreign land (ie. England) could not be trusted.

I do not believe naturalized Americans are second class citizens. Two of my grandparents were naturalized citizens and I am almost offended by your beliefs.

Years ago, after my grandmother died, I found her naturalization certificate and a small U.S. flag in an envelope. I had the certificate and flag matted and framed and gave it to my dad on Father's Day. It was the first time I saw my dad cry. The last time was when my brothers and I and our father were at my mother's bedside when she died.

[frizzled]

32. But they are second class. They don't have identical rights to natural born Americans.

That is the DEFINITION of a second class citizen.

Why are you not offended at the implication your naturalized relatives "cannot be trusted"?

[Snobblevitch]

33. Because they're all dead.

[KamaAina]

45. Actually, I believe the provision was aimed directly at Alexander Hamilton

who was born in the Caribbean.

[Zen Democrat]

29. There appears to be evidence that his mother voted in the 1974 Canadian elections.

This would have abrogated her American citizenship. It could be ugly; and especially since McConnell said the Senate would not "pre-approve" him as a natural-born citizen, as they did with McCain in 2008. The first Presidents were given a dispensation for fathers and mothers born overseas, but no more. The Constitution has the last word.

[beac]

30. And, if she did, Cruz is now neither American NOR Canadian.

I cannot think of anyone more deserving to end up "a man without a country."

[COLGATE4]

31. Incorrect. There is nothing that prevents his Mother

from having voted in Canada (if in fact she did). There are lots of Americans of dual nationality that vote in other country's elections, Israel being perhaps the best example. That in no way affects her citizenship, much less that of her son.

[Hortensis]

54. Agree. Even if she voted fraudulently, not having

established dual citizenship, say, I don't see how that would affect her U.S. citizenship, much less Cruz's.

[COLGATE4]

56. It wouldn't. You are absolutely correct. At the most

it would be a decades-old electoral fraud issue between Ms. (Mama) Cruz and the Canadian authorities. I suspect they won't be looking into it.

[Hortensis]

68. I expect you're right -- detached view infinitely desirable.

[anigbrowl]

37. No, no, and no

It pains me to link to Breitbart but their story has a good summary of the facts: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

a. Ted Cruz's mother was apparently on the Canadian equivalent of a voter roll in 1974, but voter registration appears to work rather differently there, as described in detail in the article. More importantly, though...

b. Ted Cruz was born in 1970. So even if his mother did vote in the 1974 Canadian election (which it is claimed she did not), it wouldn't matter because Ted Cruz had already been born and you can't cancel someone's US legitimate citizenship-at-birth retroactively.

c. In any case, voting in a foreign election does not abrogate US citizenship, and hasn't since 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

Please do some fact-checking when posting on complex topics like this. I know it is time-consuming but these were major factual errors.

[Hortensis]

55. Thanks for good info, Anigbrowl.

Glad to have my assumptions on b and c confirmed.

[former9thward]

51. Not true.

The U.S. recognizes dual citizenship. Plenty of Jewish people who have dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel vote in Israli elections. Trump is a dual citizen (he has U.K. citizenship though his mother).

[TeddyR]

59. Because the people who drafted the Constitution

Decided you needed to be "natural born." I don't get the sense that there's much interest in amending the Constitution to change this requirement. If you are a naturalized citizen then you clearly aren't eligible. Cruz's eligibility falls into a bit of a grey area. I personally don't think he's eligible but others might disagree.

[loyalsister]

36. Actually it's worse

Democrats doing this gives Trump's anti-immigration, anti-refugee, Islamaphobic talking points credibility because forwarding the idea that there is something scandalous about Ted Cruz not being a US citizen doesn't end with him. Ultimately it enables bigotry.

[403Forbidden]

39. But Constitutional Scholar Laurence Tribe Says The Issue is Still Unsettled

"The legal and constitutional issues around qualification for the presidency on grounds of US citizenship are “murky and unsettled”, according to the scholar cited by Donald Trump in his recent attacks on Ted Cruz."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/11/laurence-tribe-ted-cruz-donald-trump-citizen-president

[loyalsister]

40. "The scholar cited by Donald Trump"

Would that be in his brother claims about Obama or the more recent ones about Cruz?

It doesn't matter since it serves to stoke bigotry and demonize immigrants just as much the second time around.

[Goblinmonger]

44. Tribe is a pretty damn big deal in constitutional law.

Just saying.

[loyalsister]

46. Irrelevant

My point is that anyone who exploits this is jumping on Trump's bandwagon that is successfully promoting bigotry.

[403Forbidden]

47. Why is asking the question about the definition of "natural born citiszen" necessarily exploitative?

Laurence Tribe is a Harvard law professor and considered to be a scholar in the field. And he is pretty liberal. So is he exploiting the issue by simply asking the question? I myself am pretty curios as to how the SCOTUS would answer that question.

[loyalsister]

48. It's the "firestorm" that is exploitive

Jumping on the birther bandwagon reflects an exploitation of bigotry. Tribes assessment is not specifically what I am objecting to. It's the gleeful political exploitation of the question.

Quoting a respected scholar does not negate the fact that participating in birtherism = perpetuation of hate towards immigrants.

[TeddyR]

61. That's a ridiculous position

The Constitution sets forth certain requirements for eligibility for the presidency, including that one be a natural born citizen. Someone who is born in a foreign country to non-US parents and immigrates here is not a natural born citizen. That is simply legal analysis. Cruz may or may not be eligible, but questioning his eligibility doesn't have anything to do with hatred toward immigrants.

[403Forbidden]

70. Questioning Cruz's Eligibility Is Not Birtherism

Questioning whether Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to be president is not "birtherism" imho.

Because I thought birtherism was more about questioning the country of a person's birth. Like claiming Obama was born in Kenya, when he was in fact born in Hawaii. But in Cruz's case, there is no question of his birthplace. Now, if Cruz was born in the US, but people kept alleging he was born somewhere else, then that would be "birtherism" similar to what Obama went through.

That's the distinction in my view.

[Goblinmonger]

58. I think this whole argument in relation to Cruz is stupid

and makes progressives look like idiots.

That aside, if Tribe tells me it's unclear what the Constitution means, I'll believe him.

[anigbrowl]

67. He is indeed, which is why I have his work at arm's reach

But he does like to play up the mysterious aspect of the Constitution to support his vision of judges as a secular priesthood engaged in complex hermeneutics. I think his view is partly rooted in the exciting unpredictability of the Warren Court discerning new rights in the shadows ('penumbrae') of existing amendments, an excitement which has waned as the pendulum has swung back in a more textualist direction.

Although I'm not an originalist, I do think the Warren court did quite a lot of damage and that the country would be far better off if Roe v Wade had been decided differently followed by a Constitutional amendment. We haven't amended the Constitution since 1971* and it's as if we've forgotten how to do it and have drifted into a dangerous political polarization instead. I'm personally with Sanford Levinson insofar as I'm in favor of a convention to modernize the thing but that's a whole other can of worms and I don't want to derail this thread over it. I don't see that happening without an existential political crisis.

* the 27th amendment was adopted in the mid 90s but that was due to ratification delays by the States - Congress passed the 27th amendment way back in 1789 and then it was largely forgotten about for 200 years.

[truebluegreen]

60. I have zippadeedodah problems

with birther Ted Cruz getting a taste of his own medicine, or with his and tRump's fans getting into a pie fight over it. It is richly deserved, sweetly schadenfreud-ic (new word) and it makes them all look as ridiculous as they are.

[Bucky]

71. Thank you. This is a bullshit issue. His mother was a US citizen & never renounced her citizenship

This is such a moronic waste of time & attention. 1st because it legitimizes all the Obama birtherism, and 2nd because Tec Cruz is exactly who we want to run against.

[frizzled]

42. Now, should Democrats support "birtherism" against Cruz, to make sure Trump gets in?

After all, if you're certain Hillary would wipe the floor with Trump and have more room to be pressured left, why not go for it?

[ecstatic]

63. I'd rather we face Cruz than Trump. nt

[immoderate]

65. The real issue is the uncertainty. Repubs have a tradition of playing on that.

As long as there is the appearance of the possibility of a threat that Cruz' candidacy may be challenged, they won't nominate him. And that means forever.

--imm