Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Society

Where Have All The Birthers Gone? Cruz Is Running

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor.

Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressI guess I will defer to Pete Seeger’s lyrical talent to explain through verse the disappearance of our friends pejoratively referred to as “birthers”: that is, those who assert President Obama was born in Kenya and as such is ineligible for office due to not being a “natural born citizen” as required by the US Constitution.

Now that Mr. Obama is in the final year of his presidency, one would think that Birthers would be legions to storm forward and attack presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, who by his own admission and clearly established facts, was–are you ready for this–born outside the USA!

It begs of course the question…Where have all the Birthers gone?

 

For many recent years, there has been a great debate in some circles, often voraciously, speculating as to President Obama’s place of birth. The situation was not exactly diffused by what many regarded as the White House’s dismissiveness in proving his birthplace which of course led to the belief Mr. Obama had something to hide. But the opposite is true with Mr. Cruz.

peter-paul-and-maryThe entire premise of the Birther’s position was that if it could be proven Obama was born in Kenya, then it was up to Congress or the Supreme Court to cast away his presidency. Surprisingly, despite Mr. Cruz’ admission and all other readily obtainable evidences available to the Birther’s need for evidence, no great numbers are sounding the clarion calls. They have seemingly disappeared while at the verge of their own victory: advocating that foreign born presidents are in contravention to the Constitution.  Ted Cruz should be as fish swimming in a barrel.

Ted Cruz was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to an American Citizen mother. He later emigrated to the United States. Sounds like a prima facie case for the Birthers! Yet, crickets is all we hear.

Where have all the Birthers Gone? Long time waiting.

There are many academics and legal professionals who draw a credible question as to what defines Natural Born Citizen as written in Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, we don’t need Sheriff Joe or various other investigators to determine the birth place of Mr. Cruz.

Could it be possible that much of this mantra of protecting the office of the president from foreign influences is, in actuality, due to domestic political agendas? Unthinkable! I would have thought the Birther movement might have been apolitical.  Perhaps I am wrong.

Where are the these true believers? I want to see a conspiracy theory turn out to be fact. But if this is the case it surely is a setback for these folks in that one of their favorite Raisons d’être atrophied away with regard to Mr. Cruz.  Sad that such things have come to an end.

Give me that old time conspiracy!

By Darren Smith

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

187 thoughts on “Where Have All The Birthers Gone? Cruz Is Running”

  2. @R Faust and RandyJet

    Here is more detail of women(wives) and marriage to foreigners vis a vis American Citizenship:

    Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly linked women’s citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien. For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S. citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad. Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.(5)

    By the late nineteenth century, marital status was the primary factor determining a woman’s ability to naturalize. But other factors might have influenced a judge’s decision to grant or deny a woman’s naturalization petition. Some judges seemed unaware of legal naturalization requirements and regularly granted citizenship to persons racially ineligible, who had not lived in the United States the requisite five years, or did not display “good moral character.” It may be that these judges also granted citizenship to women regardless of their husband’s nationality. Women’s naturalization records dating from the 1880s and 1890s can be found, for example, among the records of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Record Group 21), though these records do not indicate the women’s marital status.

    After 1907, marriage determined a woman’s nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband’s nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien. Most of these women subsequently regained their U.S. citizenship when their husbands naturalized. However, those who married Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, or other men racially ineligible to naturalize forfeited their U.S. citizenship. Similarly, many former U.S. citizen women found themselves married to men who were ineligible to citizenship for some other reason or who simply refused to naturalize. Because the courts held that a husband’s nationality would always determine that of the wife, a married woman could not legally file for naturalization.(6)

    http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Girl Reporter: You quoted, “After 1907, marriage determined a woman’s nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband’s nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien.”

      Without facts showing an intent to revoke citizenship, this last clause of the statement above is an inaccurate as matter of law based on the Wong Kin Ark case you cited earlier. That case clearly states that under the 14th Amendment citizenship is conferred on persons born here if they’re subject to US jurisdiction. It also states that legislation – for instance, the Chinese Exclusion Act – has no affect on birth citizenship and similarly neither does marriage.

      1. stevegroen – the decision in Wok was a great help to immediately citizenizing (not sure if this is a word) the Chinese in the United States. The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 destroyed all the immigration records from the West Coast. So, after Wok, when challenged, the Chinese would say that had been born here and did not fall under the Chinese Exclusionary Act. There was no way to prove that they hadn’t.

  3. @ Randy Jet

    Google is my friend! Google can be your friend, too! To wit, if Churchill was an American citizen, how come President Kennedy has to bestow honorary American citizenship on him in 1963???:

    United States Citizen
    Declaration of Citizenship

    April 9, 1963.
    Response by President John F. Kennedy and the Response by Winston Churchill

    Declaration of Honorary Citizen
    of United States of America

    BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    A PROCLAMATION

    WHEREAS Sir Winston Churchill, a son of America though a subject of Britain, has been throughout his life a firm and steadfast friend of the American people and the American nation; and

    WHEREAS he has freely offered his hand and his faith in days of adversity as well as triumph; and

    WHEREAS his bravery, charity and valor, both in war and in peace, have been a flame of inspiration in freedom’s darkest hour; and

    WHEREAS his life has shown that no adversary can overcome, and no feat can deter, free men in the defense of their freedom; and

    WHEREAS he has by his art as an historian and his judgment as a statesman made the past the servant of the future;

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOHN F. KENNEDY, President of the United States of America, under the authority contained in an Act of the 88th Congress, do hereby declare Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the United States of America.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

    DONE at the City of Washington this ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighty-seventh.

    JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY

    http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/235-1946-1963-elder-statesman/125-united-states-citizen

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. @R Faust

    Well, saying it don’t make it so! And may I add that ITYS back in 2013, and even Mario Apuzzo, Esq. didn’t believe, it is obvious that I have better understanding of this issue than any Birther! Here is the salient point from the Pennsylvania Judge about Cruz. Read it and weep, Birthers! Look up “specious”, too!

    There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the
    upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent
    dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility,
    the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly
    clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual
    must be at least thirty five years old and a natural born
    Citizen. Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for
    better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as
    Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person
    born abroad to a U.S-. citizen parent is generally a
    citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And
    the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution
    encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an
    individual born to a US citizen parent ~whether in
    California or Canada or the Canal Zone?~is a US citizen
    from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the
    people so choose.

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755257/PA-TedCruzruling.txt

    Birthers keep saying that they know the law, but somehow they keep on losing in court! They should refer to the 2nd Book of Judges in The Birther Bible

    https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/the-birther-bible/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. The fact is that the Congress initially DID define a natural born citizen as one who has citizenship from birth,but the FATHER of our Constitution had the law and definition REVOKED in 1797! So the last time Congress acted on this subject, it clearly stated Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen. The only things that give that aura of legitimacy are the court rulings of recent vintage which have struck down the various laws Congress has passed which are restrictive of the rights of US citizens. So the courts have said he may be a natural born citizen, but not Congress or any law passed previously. That is called legislating from the bench. Thus the comment by Tribe that a conservative SCOTUS Justice would have to rule against Cruz.

    I can only guess at the reason Madison wrote and passed the law revoking the natural born status of US citizens born abroad. It was probably evident that many US women were traveling to Britain and either living there, or having kids while over there. Since the kids would be British subjects, as well as US citizens, he obviously saw the need to revoke their natural born status because the UK was our traditional enemy.

    I know of NO country on Earth that grants citizenship upon marriage to a native person of that country. So Chuchill’s mother did not get UK citizenship immediately after the honeymoon. Thus according to those who think that citizenship means natural born, Chuchill could have run for President since his mother was still a US citizen at the time of his birth.

  6. Renegade:

    Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    “What intrigues me is from where does the “why” come?”

    An interesting question, which, don’t forget, derives from us. It may be a meaningless question objectively. If it holds value objectively, the answer at this point is open. Positing a god to answer that why, again, seems pointless. And lazy. “Why” may be irrelevant.

    “How is it that quanta have formed into a thinking state beyond even fuzzy logic?”

    The first part is a physical question; the second part, philosophical. It’s remarkable that the atoms that make you, you, don’t know you even exist. Yet collectively, you are you. A mystery, sure. But problems arise when people become certain of answers.

    “If it’s not a unique occurrence, then why isn’t it found all through the universe…or at least somewhere?”

    Someone once said that our search for life is like lifting a glass of water from the ocean and then proclaiming fish do not exist. We’ve only begun searching the cosmos for increased intelligence. Statistically, it’s likely out there. But maybe not.

    “If it is unique, the how and what may answer mechanics but again the sentient asks the why…but why?”

    We must question the why that we ask, as well.

    “If there is no “other” involved, how does one account for pure energy seeking to differentiate itself when assembled in the quanta structure we call human?”

    We’re constructed of the same elements scattered across the universe. We’re not made of some magic material. The arrangement of those materials, over the course of billions of years, permit self-replication to arise, and can lead later to intelligence. Which we are but one expression.

    “Action requires stimulus does it not? An object remains in its state until a force (defined any way desired) is applied.”

    Classically, yes. But in quantum mechanics, energy can emerge on its own, in the form of virtual particles for instance.

    “From whence the force and WHY. Now let’s assume it’s all accidental, how do we define “accidental” and then a basic question reappears “from whence does the definition derive and WHY?”

    Hence the impotency of any god. Why a god? From where did it arise? Why did it arise? A fallacy of infinite regress that answers nothing. It’s not so much accidental as it is unintentional.

    “Now on the present day front, how is it that we, who exist in the present, have not figured out how to restore a crushed rose, much less how to make one from the material of the soil.”

    Entropy. Nevertheless, we can create diamonds molecularly indistinguishable from those found in nature. And on and on. Organ transplants for the sake of the overall body. Or manipulating air around a wing to give lift. Give it time.

    “Yes, we may know all the order and building blocks, but we fully sentient beings haven’t figured out how to concoct a rose or even an amoeba from any combination found on the periodic table?”

    Maybe not now, but we may in the future. Craig Ventor, for example, is working on that very problem.

    “We have not been able to reconstruct the “accident” of creation from primal elements.”

    The LHC brings us back, along with the observatories that provide glimpses into the earliest moments in time. Especially experiments involving the microwave background radiation, such as WMAP. And with the confirmation of gravitational waves, we may be able to peer beyond that opaque wall as well.

    “Now let’s assume we construct the present day ultimate achievement —another human starting from elemental material….again WHY did we do it?”

    We’ve cloned sheep. Give it time. A hundred years. A thousand years. Who knows what we’re capable of.

    “Could one reasonably say that there is more evidence in the “void” to substantiate a sentient “other” than not?”

    Until evidence arises, there’s no reason to think any such sentience exists. It’s merely possible.

    “A “for and against” table would be interesting. See also John Polkinghorn, theoretical physicist.”

    Polkinghorne, also a theologian, is an apologist seeking to move the goal-posts, in order to preserve his version of dogma. Far more enlightening to read EO Wilson’s take on consilience.

  8. Squeaky Fromm:

    “Hmmm. Sooo, do people with beliefs similar to your believe in a “higher power”, that is something greater than the individual???”

    We’re all connected through naturalistic processes. I don’t require any concocted power beyond that, to feel related. And it’s more than enough to inspire wonder.

    “Because I am curious why people who truly don’t believe in something greater than the individual, always seem to have some sort of “moral code” that makes them dislike hypocrisy, or unfairness, or falsehood.”

    The claim that a sky-authority is greater than we are is itself deeply bankrupt. We have to make our own greatness. And getting on our knees to worship a King George III-like celestial figure is pathetic.

    “If we are all just little clumps of matter who go in the ground when our 3 score and 10 are up, then what does any of that really matter???”

    We have to make our own meaning. Pretending meaning derives from an outside source, to me, is meaningless. And don’t diminish the amazing complexity of material reality, of which we’re all made. It undermines all of us, including you, to the core.

    “Why not just grab everything we can, no matter how we get it, and just maximize our own brief existence???”

    Because we’re altruistic, as displayed throughout the natural world. There’s plenty of ruthless selfishness, of course. But altruism exists just the same. Being conscious animals, we can choose not to serve our baser instincts, and construct a society that infringes on no one, and elevates opportunity to pursue happiness.

    1. Dave 137
      In your response to Fromm, I see several answers (parts) to the what and the how.

      What intrigues me is from where does the “why” come? How is it that quanta have formed into a thinking state beyond even fuzzy logic? If it’s not a unique occurrence, then why isn’t it found all through the universe…or at least somewhere? If it is unique, the how and what may answer mechanics but again the sentient asks the why…but why? If there is no “other” involved, how does one account for pure energy seeking to differentiate itself when assembled in the quanta structure we call human? Action requires stimulus does it not? An object remains in its state until a force (defined any way desired) is applied. From whence the force and WHY. Now let’s assume it’s all accidental, how do we define “accidental” and then a basic question reappears “from whence does the definition derive and WHY?”

      Now on the present day front, how is it that we, who exist in the present, have not figured out how to restore a crushed rose, much less how to make one from the material of the soil. Yes, we may know all the order and building blocks, but we fully sentient beings haven’t figured out how to concoct a rose or even an amoeba from any combination found on the periodic table? We have not been able to reconstruct the “accident” of creation from primal elements. Now let’s assume we construct the present day ultimate achievement —another human starting from elemental material….again WHY did we do it?

      Could one reasonably say that there is more evidence in the “void” to substantiate a sentient “other” than not?
      A “for and against” table would be interesting. See also John Polkinghorn, theoretical physicist.

  10. The “birthed” question is not of equivalence when comparing Obama and Cruz.
    There is no doubt about the circumstances of Cruz’s birth. Amongst other things, it is clear Cruz was born outside the USA, and there is no contested birth certificate.
    The question re. Cruz is whether he meets the definition required under the Constitution of present day?
    The question re. Obama is more fundamental. Where was he born? Once settled and if in favor of Obama, then the “Cruz” question may kick in.

    Whether or not the current of future chief executive is a citizen is one thread, I’m even more interested in an outworking of the birthed question.

    Now if it proves out somehow that a person who served as President was in fact not eligible to do so,
    what is the effect upon his(her) actions while in office?

    Are all of the “signatures” null and void?

    1. Renegade – the Constitution has not changed so the ‘birther’ clause still exists for Cruz. Where Obama was born is an open question. A forensic team from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office went over his long form birth certificate and found a number of flaws.

  11. @smrstrauss

    The real question is, does Obama remember being at Columbia and Occidental??? Because all that pot can really screw with your memory.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. Olly
    1, March 19, 2016 at 7:23 pm
    The one thing Christians and Constitutionalists do have in common is a respect for authority that exists above man.
    ———————————
    Olly, what authority is that? I know for the Christians it is God but is it also God for the constitunionalists?

  14. @RandyJet

    Actually, the statutory laws were different when Winston Churchill was born. At one point, American women who married foreigners took their husband’s citizenship status. I think that was changed sometime during the 1920s(IIRC). Anyway, Churchill would not have met the criteria as a natural born citizen.

    Plus, Canadian law does not TRUMP United States law INSIDE the United States. Cruz’s American citizenship is a matter of U.S. law. Period. He did not even have to rescind his Canadian citizenship. That was just for dramatic effect.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  15. @Dieter

    That restriction is simply not be a “naturalized” citizen. If you are born in the country,and UNDER ITS JURISDICTION, the 14th Amendment makes citizens of 99.9999% of such persons. There is a valid legal question as to whether “anchor babies” are truly citizens at birth, but I don’t see the current SCOTUS denying natural born citizenship status to children of illegal aliens. But it is still a valid legal question. There are some other weird little scenarios that could play out, too.

    As far as Americans born overseas, Congress has the authority to declare certain persons to be natural born citizens just as if they were born here, if certain legal conditions are met. Those conditions have changed over time. But Cruz is a natural born citizen under any reasonable interpretation of the law. The only distinction of a natural born citizen, is that he/she/it can become president.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  16. I have to laugh at those who believe in God, and Ayn Rand who was a godless capitalist. At least Rand had a consistent philosophy which went with her atheism which basically DID say grab all you can and screw everybody else. You cannot be a fan of Rand AND be a Christian as she herself noted.

    1. randyjet – I think you can be a fan of anyone and be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Hindu, etc.

  17. Two comments.
    Faust: Alexander Hamilton was born in a British colony hence had British citizenship at birth by British common law. He was therefore qualified to become US President just like George Washington who was a British citizen at birth.

    1. Barbados does not equal Virginia. Last I heard, Barbados was not one of the 13 colonies that declared independence from the United Kingdom, and did not become an independent sovereign nation until 1966. Also, as a member of the Commonwealth realm, the head of state of Barbados is Queen Elizabeth II. To take your argument to the nth degree, Justin Trudeau, who like Alexander Hamilton and George Washington was born in the British Commonwealth, is not only the Prime Minister of Canada, but is eligible to run for President of the United States of America. If one agrees with you, our head of state, like Barbados, like Canada, is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. If that is true, is not the American Revolution moot? Et tu Cruz?

    2. Dieter: Hamilton wasn’t eligible because he wasn’t born here. Washington was eligible because he was. I hope this makes sense to you.

      1. Steve….I was a young man when I attended our Constitutional Convention in Philidelphia😊.
        Been a long time since I’ve sudied it. It would be interesting to see if there are notes/ diaries/ documents that actually “fine-tune” what they meant by “natuaral born citizen”.
        Or maybe they intentionally left it vague.

      2. Richard Faust….technically then, would one born outside the 13 colonies…say in the the Lousiana Purchase territory…before they were purchased and/ or admitted as states….would also not be “natural born citizens”?
        I hadn’t thought about that. Interesting.

    3. Dieter – Hamilton was born in St. Kitts, never became part of the U.S. Came to the American colonies when he was 15.

  18. The one fact that should end the controversy about Cruz is that for almost his whole life HE WAS A CANADIAN CITIZEN. The whole intent of requiring a President to be a natural born citizen was to prevent divided loyalty in the office. For those who think he is still eligible, then they would have to say that Winston Churchill could also have run for President after he lost the election in 1945 since his mother was a US citizen. Think that is what our founders had in mind? Most rational folks would think otherwise. Being a citizen at birth is NOT the same as being a natural born citizen since most US citizens are NOT also citizens of another country. Congress at one point DID say that, but Madison, the father of the Constitution changed that law and definition, and it had NOT been changed back. THAT should be the end of the discussion.

  19. @Dave137

    Hmmm. Sooo, do people with beliefs similar to your believe in a “higher power”, that is something greater than the individual???

    Because I am curious why people who truly don’t believe in something greater than the individual, always seem to have some sort of “moral code” that makes them dislike hypocrisy, or unfairness, or falsehood. If we are all just little clumps of matter who go in the ground when our 3 score and 10 are up, then what does any of that really matter??? Why not just grab everything we can, no matter how we get it, and just maximize our own brief existence???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  20. I think that around 1800 someone born in Canada then moving to the US would have been viewed with considerable suspicion.
    I am not a lawyer but I am struck by the constitutional difference of the citizenship requirements for president and senator. A president must be a “natural born citizen”. A senator must be a “citizen”. Apparently, to become president the candidate’s citizenship has to be more restrictive than if the candidate wants to become a US Senator. I am asking the lawyers who write here: “what could that restriction be”?

Comments are closed.