Fox 13 News in Salt Lake City reports that Walter Wagner has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in SLC claiming Ted Cruz is a not natural born citizen. Read the complaint here. It is styled a “Complaint for declaratory relief.”
This one has a novel definition of “natural born citizen.” According to the complaint, a child born abroad to one US citizen parent is only a natural born citizen if the US Citizen parent had an intent to reside in the US soon afterwards and not in the foreign country. This suit alleges that Cruz’ parents were seeking permanent residence in Canada when Ted Cruz was born.
As authority, Wagner cites the recent article by Mary Brigid McManamon, Minor v. Happersett and the statutory authority for declarative judgments.
From the Minor decision Wagner notes its tangential application in that the two conditions for natural born citizenship given in the case (born in the country to citizen parents for certain, and born in the country to alien parents maybe) state birth in the country as a common factor.
The complaint is well ordered, literate and succinct. That said, there appear to be two insurmountable problems with the case: 1) lack of standing, 2) the lack of any statutory authority supporting the contention that the US Citizen parent must have the intent to reside in the United States. McManamon makes no such argument, and neither does Wagner. This case is
Update:
Case dismissed for lack of standing – no specific harm pled.
I know Wagner’s email address is “retlawdad,” but I don’t think he’s a lawyer. It looks like he likes to sue people, and has picked up a few things along the way.
It’s also interesting how Trump keeps alluding he might sue, but lets others poison the well with laymen’s lawsuits that create precedent.
Ultimately, I guess Doc was right (I think it was him who said it first) that birtherism (in the widest sense) seems to have become a mainstream smear tactic.
I wouldn’t be surprised if even lily-white native-born two-citizen-parent candidates will be the subject of swiftboating in the future (“Have you heard the allegations he was born on the other side of the border when his parents were vacationing in Texas? Can we take the risk?”).
I don’t think Mr Wagner grasps what ‘factual’ means….
In his ‘Factual allegations’ section he states, with no supporting evidence
Cruz the Elder was ‘seeking permanent Canadian residence at the time of the defendants birth’
Ditto, mama..
Problem is, no actual evidence, and residence is not citizenship
Apparently someone ‘declaimed’ to ‘Canadian government agents’ that the Cruz’s were Canadian citizens….Hearsay and anonymous hearsay at that.
Then there is the ever popular “Da Prez is a gubmint employee position, show us ya papers boy”……Alas no FOAD
This along with the babble about “intention”….how does one define said “intention”…is there a register of “intention” maintained somewhere, does not returning to the US not count as the predicate act denoted by “intention” etc. Oh and the continuing babble that seems to confuse residence with citizenship.
Yep, more doomed than a doomed thing with extra doomed sauce on top….
He’s not in the Utah bar directory. I think I’ll change the article.
And The Donald raised the Cruz eligibility specter again Monday night.
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/26/464375175/trump-hammers-birther-charge-dismisses-cruz-as-the-canadian
I have read that Cruz, Sr. naturalized in Canada. I don’t know if that’s true, but the entire story of how they ended up in Canada is a bit unclear. I know Cruz, Sr. fought with Fidel Castro and then had a falling out and left Cuba to go to school in Texas, where he met and married Mrs. Cruz. Why they left for Calgary, where they stayed for several years, is unknown, as is why they came back to the US in 1974.
Their names did appear on a Canadian voter roll for the 1974 federal election. That is documented fact. However, such lists in Canada are compiled by enumerators, rather than having the voters register as in the US, and errors are possible.
What I find ironic is that every tiny detail of Obama’s story was questioned even though he was totally open, even having written a best seller about it. All the documents supported what he said. His mother’s story may have not been that of Jane Average American, but it was not hidden. With Cruz, his parents’ story is pretty obscure.
Now, I must say that none of this changes whether or not Ted is eligible. Even if his mother took Canadian citizenship, she wouldn’t have lost her`US citizenship and she certainly lived in the US long enough to transmit that to her son. Whether that makes him eligible or not has nothing to do with his parents’ intent in going to Canada. But, I like a good story that makes sense, like that of Obama’s mother.
Sounds as if you been smoking something growing on the side of the road mixed with a
the remains of dead skunk.
Why do people keep stating it doesn’t matter what Ted Cruz’s mother did with her Canadian Citizenship because she had U.S. Citizenship at her birth?
Has the 2011 Obama ordered drone strike on New Mexico U.S. Citizen Anwar al Awlaki, born in 1971, been like erased from your minds?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
It is not Cruz’s mother’s citizenship at her birth you should recite in questioning Ted’s Citizenship stature, but His Mom’s conferred Citizenship [at the Time of TED’s birth] for a pretty good reason.
If her interest, loyalty, and Citizenship were with Canada at the Time of Ted’s birth, it was not American citizenship she conferred.
Everyone thinks, so many people think that a person can’t ditch birth place Citizenship. Simply isn’t true. You can. I personally think she had about as equally as Ted’s father ditched His native Cuban citizenship.
McCain’s Panamainian native born citizenship is a factor in considering the ditch n stich naturalization process also.
Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents as the definition if [natural born Citizen] works.
Because it doesn’t.
“The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. nationals intend to retain United States nationality when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, declare their allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality.html
Since Mrs. Cruz did not serve in the Canadian Armed Forces (nor was Canada at war with the US) and did not serve in a policy-making post in the Canadian government, it is the position of the US government that Mrs. Cruz remained a US citizen unless she went to the US Consulate and formally renounced, which there is no evidence to suggest she did. If you don’t like that, tough….
The Cruz thing is a again a bigger case of “someone” said, but no one seems to be coming up with any real objective proof. We know that Cruz Sr was a Cuban citizen who fled Castro’s regime. We know that Momma was a US citizen. We presumably know that they got married at some point as they divorced at some later date. The ONLY things WE KNOW beyond that for sure are that Cruz Sr and Momma were married and in Canada when Cruz the lesser was born. Those are indisputable facts, and Cruz has a CANADIAN birth certificate to prove just that. It is claimed that Sr was seeking Canadian citizenship, we have yet to see any proof of that, so that is in the realm of hearsay, it is reasonable since he was stateless at the time and would have wanted citizenship somewhere, although why not the US is a good question. There is no indication that Momma ever did or had any intention of doing so anymore than there is any proof she ever gave up her citizenship. The fact is, that IF Cruz Sr and Momma had applied for and received Canadian citizenship, there would be a record of that, and they weren’t there long enough to accomplish that if I remember correctly, and again which NO ONE has come forth with, and I don’t for a minute believe that it wouldn’t have come out if there had been one. Naturalization is a public record. The fact that Cruz et al later returned to the US and that Jr later got a US passport and has since been elected to office indicates that the State Dept had no issues with his citizenship.
One thing that comes to mind, again IIRC, was that Momma was working for a US firm in Canada and therefore would presumably have been making good money, since I have heard of no great career advancements of SR, I have to assume that she was the one making the money, and if so, then that would have been a good, and the reason they were in Canada. This is just supposition on my part.
I guess I’m just interested more in what is than what if??
The one public record we have is the 1974 voter list, and, of course, only Canadian citizens can vote. However, Canadian voter lists in those days were compiled by enumeration, meaning a census-like procedure, where enumerators stopped at each house and asked how many citizens of voting age lived there. Lists were compiled for each election. Canadian elections are typically called with only 1 month or so notice (imagine that, Americans who think a 2 year marathon is necessary), so the lists weren’t error-free. For example, an enumerator could have found the Cruzes out and asked a neighbor who lived there and wrote the names down. Bottom line, we don’t know.
As far as being there enough time to get citizenship, since Cruz Sr. was stateless after Castro took away his Cuban citizenship, there may have been special provisions for such cases. Again, we don’t know.
To be clear, it doesn’t affect Teddy’s eligibility or US citizenship.
No that is a pretty good and thorough answer, but I think that as jurisdiction is considered the fact she was noticed under Canadaian Citizenship at the TIME of Ted Cruz’s birth, that if she had Dual Citizenship for purposes of [conferred] citizenship, that also amplified by Place of Jurisdiction, as it pertains to [natural Born Citizen] for Art. II Sect 1, C-5 Standards of Review, Ted has no Claim on conferred U.S. Citizenship from his mother at the TIME of his birth.
Certainly under his Claim of Naturalization Act of 1790 , This may be a moot consideration anyway as that Act specifically was a designate for [conferred] U.S. Citizenship from Fathers, [singular] and not [Parents] plural.
Ted of course having no Claim on being Born during or in between the years from 1790 to 1795 when the [natural Born Citizen] was stripped and [Citizen] replaced it with a Naturalization domination of action.
Do you think he should Return the 39Million to Voters defrauded?
Perhaps Voters should send their BILLS of FRAUD to the U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES for Failing to decide with Opinion what the Standard has always been since the Time of the Adoption of the U.S. Constitution?
If you don’t like Cruz, don’t vote for him. He’s a horrible person whom no one likes, and that is regardless of where or to whom he was born.
Scientist, agreed, there is a lot of speculation and what ifs and we’d really really like to believes, fantasies all really, but there is an absolute paucity of facts to support that same speculation and wishful thinking.
As things now stand, barring proof to the contrary, and I think it would certainly have popped up by now if there were any, Sr did not become a Canadian citizen, Momma did not renounce her citizenship or become a Canadian citizen, that time thing again, and the Cruzer is a US citizen.
Note to a certain degenerate liar, the 1790 Act is so totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, current laws and interpretations bein sufficient to the task.
40M$ BillOfFRAUD #SCOTUS LIABILITY Hearing14-9396 NBCtzn #legalnews #IowaCaucus @realDonaldTrump #TedCruz #CruzCrew
https://t.co/p5zpME7tMR
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/692381696465903616
Seems the U.S. Supreme Court should be picking up the LegalTab mounting under Ted Cruz Law Suits for a deliberate and arbitrary malfeasance in not Hearing the Case Judy v. Obama 14-9396 that specifically asked for the Courts Opinion on [Natural Born Citizen] as it is regarded in Qualification of Article II., Section 1, Clause 5 in Question No. 1.
This is their Area of Expertise, Duty, and Responsibility right?
http://www.codyjudy.us
Yes, but the Qualification for President is NOT [Citizen] like Representative and Senators, it’s [natural born Citizen] , unless you were a Patriotic Revolutionary Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of the Constitution.
Cruz and Obama fail
Of course I will not be Voting for him. Of course I will also NOTICE the horrific malfeasance of SCOTUS to defraud and not protect U.S. Citizenery from incredible deceit and fraud happening in the Presidential Race wasting Court Resources like a T-REX eating precious resources I’ve specifically noticed as harm and damage to my Presidential Campaigns of 08, 12, and 16, when none would be necessary if they had Heard 14-9396 asking and pleading it would not be so.
Their Bad Behavior and such cold hearted calculated cognitive dissonance is generating great hurt within our Country calculated easily in the Trillions of dollars!
CRJ posted this on his blog the other day.
“What’s your Record? Everyone has got a record. Last Sunday the Denver Broncos played the New England Patriots for NFC Championship and the North Carolina Panthers played the Arizona Cardinals for the AFC Championship in the National Football League.”
It’s yet another example of his muddled thinking, because the Patriots and Broncos are in the AFC and the Cardinals and Panthers are in the NFC. And the Panthers are the Carolina Panthers, not the North Carolina Panthers.
Judy can think whatever he likes, but there’s no evidence that Cruz’s mother ever lost her U.S. citizenship.
And Judy can think that birth in the United States to two citizen parents would be better, but that’s not actually the law.
Courts enjoy judicial immunity, and there was nothing wrong about the courts dumping Judy’s frivolous lawsuit. Which didn’t even include Cruz until Judy wasted SCOTUS’ time — and you can’t add parties at that late stage.
Sigh…
CRJ sounds like the Bourbon kings, who were said to never learn, and never forget. Unless someone comes up with contradictory evidence, Cruz’s ma had not lived in Canada long enough to attain citizenship there. Thus at little Ted’s 1970 birth, he had a U.S. citizen parent and a non citizen former U.S. resident parent, sufficient to render him a birthright U.S. citizen under the 1952 immigration bill.
Whatever the controversy regarding the law, the facts seem clear.
No fan of Cruz, but like a good umpire I try to call ’em the same way for opposing sides.
Another Cruz eligibility article:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-27/ted-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-according-to-the-constitution.
In an Opinion piece Robert N. Clinton says not eligible. He is the Foundation Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. He teaches constitutional law, federal Indian law, cyberspace law and copyrights.
Note to the lying convicted felon. Cruz mother could not have been a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth since neither she nor daddy Cruz had been there long enough to get citizenship. Further there is not one scintilla of evidence that they ever even applied for Canadian citizenship, they weren’t there long enough to have gotten it, and returned to the US. Teddy was a citizen by virtue of the laws on the books at the time, and unless or until a court says otherwise, is presumed to not only be a citizen, but a natural born citizen as well.
There is no fraud; fraud involves deception and Cruz admits he was born in Canada. There is a difference of legal opinion, but fraud is material mis-statement of fact, not a difference of opinion. “I own the Brooklyn bridge and will sell it to you” is fraud. “The Brooklyn Bridge is ugly” is opinion; one most people would strongly disagree with, but not fraud.
Though a Circuit Court opinion, it is fairly well-developed and provides some guidance as to the common law. I guess the pertinent questions would be (1) If the common law controlled “natural-born citizen”, does Congress have the authority to change it?
Ex parte Reynolds (1879) –Circuit Court for the Western District of Arkansas
“And the court referred to the common law as authority for the position that the condition of the mother fixed the status of the offspring. The court is sustained in the first position by the common law, and also in the last position, if applied to the offspring of a connection between a freeman and a slave, upon the principle handed down from the Roman civil law, that the owner of a female animal is entitled to all her brood, according to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem. But by the common law this rule is reversed with regard to the off spring of free persons. Their offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Diet. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U. S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to. freemen—as old as the
common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem—the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen; the other being a rule defining the ownership of property—the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom; the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother.
No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country.
In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: “The universal maxim of the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the
application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.”
The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The
country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent,” Again, on page 102, Vattel says: “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.” This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common
law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”
You are quoting from § 212 of Vattel. Don’t you think that § 214 has relevance here?
Arthur B., Sections 214 and 215, I think, would/should be influential.
What is a Bill of Fraud? Did you just make that up?
As has been explained to you before, even if SCOTUS had granted you cert and reinstated your frivolous lawsuit, the Justices would not have made a ruling on eligibility. The best you could have hoped for was to have your case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
What you fail to comprehend is that the merits of your imaginary “two-citizen parents requirement” were irrelevant to your appeal. Your lawsuit was dismissed because you failed to plea a legally-recognized claim for relief. That was the only issue which SCOTUS would have considered, and you utterly failed to make the case that you were entitled to relief.
Actually, we do know. Neither Cruz had not been resident in Canada long enough to have become a citizen of Canada.
Cruz Sr. says differently.
“I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.”
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
According to the Cruz campaign he became a Canadian citizen in 1973.
“Eleanor never became a permanent resident. Eleanor had lived in Canada for only three years by the time Cruz was born (from 1967 to 1970). Note that Cruz’s father, Rafael did become a Canadian citizen in 1973; Eleanor never did and therefore could never have registered to vote.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/
Cody, how about trying to discuss a topic without making it all about you and your rejected case.
What I should have said that neither Cruz had been resident in Canada long enough to have become Canadian citizens in 1970 when Ted was born.
Which still boils down to them NOT being Canadian citizens at the time of Jr’s birth.
Judy literally can’t go to the bathroom without thinking about his failed frivolous case.
While you quote Vattel correctly, you fail to grasp the context. Writing as a French jurist, I am happy to explain it to you.
1. Vattel was not saying how things ought to work, but merely describing how the jus sanguinis principles of citizenship were applied in France, Germany and Switzerland at the time; he also described as jus soli was applied in England, without any criticism (and Vatter was not afraid of saying so when he things something was wrong in his opinion). Even if Vattel was an influence on your Founders, there is no reason to choose his description of the French system of citizenship rather than his description of the British one, as applicable to your case. Quite the opposite, in fact.
2. The legal rights of the mother, which were not recognized when Vattel wrote his Treatise, were steadily expanded from the mid-19th century onward until women (mothers) came to enjoy an equal position with men (fathers). Therefore the modern interpretation of Vattel is that it should be construed as gender neutral (other than for historical studies) and you should use “fathers” or “mothers” interchangeably, the point here being that Vattel makes it crystal clear that one parent is enough to transmit citizenship.
I hope this proves useful to you in reaching a better understanding of the issue.
JGLaw Vattel was not writing about what the laws of nations should be, but was writing about what the laws of the various nations WERE at the time he wrote it in the mid 1700’s. It is not a text book of how to do things, but a survey of how things were being done at that time. If you are going to quote it, at least please have the decency to quote the correct sections, specifically § 214, that dealt with the English speaking world, not the continent. If you choose to do otherwise you merely exhibit your ignorance and lack of understanding of history and what the law was at the time. And under NO circumstances would Vattel have ever been considered a part of the English common law or legal practice here in this country.
You’re both correct. Let’s note the irony that, despite that, the expenses of Little Ted’s birth were paid by the Province of Alberta. Yet, Little Ted grew up to shut the US government down in an attempt to deny the universal health care from which he benefited in Canada to Americans.
Having considered the evidence, this court has no choice but to find the defendant, Ted Cruz, guilty of gross and aggravated hypocrisy, and to pronounce him morally and ethically ineligible for the presidency, whether or not he might be a natural born citizen.
For those here who can’t read, I want to point out that I presented no argument. I merely quoted the court, and what the court found to be the universal maxim of the common law.
“‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.’ This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”
I don’t care to have anyone here tell me what Vattel was writing about, or whether or not they feel it was correct. I do care that the courts found the Law of Nations to be part of the common law. While the Fourteenth Amendment was a positive rule regarding birth within the jurisdiction of the United States, no such Amendment was enacted for those born outside the United States. It will be up to the court to decide whether or not (1) Those born abroad of a citizen mother and a non-citizen father follow the condition of the mother or the father, or both. (2) The naturalization laws created by Congress influence the definition of natural-born citizen.
Are you saying that a modern-day court would still be bound by the originalist 18th century principle as written then?
We (in France) live under the Napoleonic Code as promulgated in 1804 and French courts and lawyers quote from it all the time, but no one construes or interprets it as it was then.
In this specific case, men had rights that women did not have; obviously that has changed since. The legal principle here — which has not changed — is that a single citizen parent can transmit citizenship to his/her offspring.
I do not know US courts of law but I doubt very much that it would apply the 18th century interpretation of the clause you quote.
Blackstone said the Law of Nations was part of the common law to the extent there was questions within its jurisdiction which he says related to disputes between nations and individuals from different nations. No one said it was applicable outside of international relations or replaced common law provisions or became the common law definitions defining nationality.
You are citing a few outlier cases on the common law. Such cases were presented to the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and the court said they were wrong.
“The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.”
Thus, the reason to this day anyone born outside US is an alien unless naturalized by statute. As I’ve said before, the notion that the common law contained a jus sanguinis principle (as well as a jus soli principle) was rejected by the vast majority of American scholars before being rejected by the Supreme Court. It was also rejected by most English scholars such as Blackstone, Chitty and Cockburn. It is certainly possible the founders bought into such theory, but there is little or no evidence to support it.
Ballantine, We agree. Cruz was born an alien and was naturalized by statute.
The information I posted relates solely to a child born outside the United States. As such, the Court’s holding in WKA, and how the Fourteenth Amendment functions as a restatement of jus soli are not applicable.
Lupin, Women didn’t acquire the right to vote in this country, merely because it seemed like the right thing to do (though a number of states had granted women that right). It took a Constitutional Amendment.
While I would agree that women of today should have just as much of a role in passing citizenship to their offspring, the courts still use the father’s domicile as the domicile of the child in many states (including my own).
The U.S. Courts have gone both ways with regard to a “living constitution” that keeps up with the times versus one that is bound by strict textual interpretation that observes the meaning when it was ratified.
As a geneticist, I can assure you that is NOT the law of nature. Chromosomal inheritance is passed equally from the mother and the father. However, mitochondrial DNA is passed solely maternally. So at a DNA level, you follow the condition of the mother more than that of the father. In addition, we have recently begun to appreciate the importance of epigentics, that is changes to gene expression caused by conditions in the womb, which can, in themselves, be inheritable. So that statement is provably false.
And the laws of nature have nothing to do with citizenship, which is a man-made construct.
Nature doesn’t know that the eastern United States once was part of Great Britain, that Florida was once part of Spain, that Louisiana was once part of France, that California was once part of Mexico, etc.
And all of those were stolen from the First Nations,,,,,