Cruz supporters and a repealed Act of 1790

129q30

Over on the Mark Levin’s Fan Club of Intelligent, Thinking Women (and Men) on Facebook,
a poster posted the Naturalization Act of 1790 as justification for Ted Cruz being eligible. I posted the following response.

I decided to reply with an indepth analysis and prove that anyone using the 1790 Naturalization Act to justify Cruz’s eligibilty is in error and is complete nonsense.

Citing a law that was repealed five years later is simply childish and shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.

I will try and keep this simple so you can look up the relevant words and hopefully educate yourself.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was quite clear.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.

Then five years later the Naturalization Act of 1795 was enacted and omitted the ‘Natural Born’ equation.

The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by omitting the term “natural born.” The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].” It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”

That is your first mistake by citing a law that was repealed and then the Naturalization Act of 1795 was again repealed in 1802. But even citing the Naturalization Act proves Ted Cruz is not eligible, as in that act even being born overseas meant you still needed US Citizen parents, plural and not singular. The citizenship of the mother is not even part of the equation and never was till years later. So attempting to say a singular (parent) is not a reality. Doubt it, read on. Also the Act is quite clear and distinct “the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”. Where is the word mother used? It isn’t!

A quick review of the terms “Natural Born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in the United States Constitution.

The United States Constitution is quite clear on the Constitutional Requirements of the Presidency.

United States Constitution Article. II. Section. 1.

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.

Note the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’

Referring to the Constitutional Requirements of the Senate and Representatives;

United States Constitution Art 1 Sec 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Note the Term ‘Citizen’

United States Constitution Article 1 Sec 3       

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Note the term “Citizen’

The terms ‘Citizen’ and ‘Natural Born Citizen’ are not the same and not interchangeable. A Natural Born Citizen is a higher standard.

The ‘first’ time that a woman was able to keep her citizenship was with the Cable Act of 1922.

The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage.(It is also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act). Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.

Former immigration laws prior to 1922 did not make reference to the alien husband’s race. However, The Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to an “alien eligible to naturalization.” At the time of the law’s passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for US citizenship. As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies and allowed women to retain their US citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her US citizenship, just as under the previous law.

The Cable Act also had other limitations: a woman could keep her US citizenship after marrying a non-Asian alien if she stayed within the United States. However, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years, she could still lose her right to US nationality.

ln 1931, an amendment allowed females to retain their citizenship even if they married an Asian. In 1936, the Cable Act was repealed.

So under US Law since the founding of our nation till the Cable Act of 1922, the woman lost her US Citizenship and took the condition of her husband.  Fact, with the exception of the Asian requirement.

Then in 1934,  The Citizenship Act of 1934 was enacted which for the ‘first’ time allowed a mother to transmit any US Citizenship to her children. So citing the Naturalization Act of 1790 or 1795 is in complete error, as it wasn’t till 1922 that the mother was recognized as separate citizenship and then it was 1934 before she could even confer citizenship upon her children.

Here is the The Citizenship Act of 1934

Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never “resided” in the United States prior to the child’s birth. In the absence of a specific definition of “resided”, the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.

Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of “resided” continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.

So claiming that the Naturalization Act of 1790 or even the 1795 act which removed the elevated Natural Born equivalency bestowed any citizenship from the mother is untrue and the above proves it. To that pointy in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

Even if when Ted Cruz was born in 1970, Ted Cruz’s mother was required by law to register the birth with the US Consulate and file a CRBA.

There is serious doubt that was ever done and that being the case. Ted Cruz’s condition at birth is a Canadian citizen (documented by his Canadian Birth certificate) and Cuban citizenship from his father. Ted’s father Rafael Cruz was naturalized in 2005.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Scot Sheely named in second IRS complaint

TPNBanner3

Tea Party Nation’s moderator Scot Sheely has been named in a second IRS complaint after violating the sites Terms of Service.

In the continuing saga of Scot Sheely banning the Freedom of Speech with anyone that disagrees with his political candidate (Canadian Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz)

Below is a post where Scot Sheely’s action have been confronted.

ScotCalledOut

Again, Scot’s own personal attacks and insults go unpunished and he continued abuse towards others that have rightfully challenged Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz’s constitutional eligibility or policies.

Here is what Scot Sheely posted and again after his own insults has banned another with an opposing viewpoint.

ScotSheelyBannedTGFD2Cropped

Scot Sheely’s actions are a violation as Tea Party Nation solicits donations and contributions.

Another example of Scot Sheely’s banning based upon a different opinion.

FranlWorthPost

 

Will Judson Phillips wake up or will the complaints and filings to the IRS and the potential loss of Tea Party Nation IRS standings force Scot Sheely to pay for his unethical actions? More filings are in the works and being documented.

10qvb0

Update

Candidates campaign’s notified of the unethicial conduct at Tea Party Nation and provided with additonal material including updated thread entries.

 

Tea Party Nation – the den of hypocrisy

Scot Sheely named in IRS Complaint against Tea Party Nation

Scot Sheely named in second IRS complaint

Scot Sheely attempts to cover up

Warning on Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz

The tail might be wagging, but the teeth are snarling.

Those that think Cruz’s wife doesn’t have a plan or motive. Consider this.

Heidi Cruz

As Rush Limbaugh notes, Donald Trump has indeed made illegal immigration into an issue of national debate. The liberal media and now, apparently, the chairman of the Republican Party, have objected to Trump’s comments about criminal aliens. In fact, what Trump has done is jeopardize a plan that goes way beyond mere amnesty for illegals, and which has been on the drawing board for more than a decade. Simply put, the plan is to submerge the sovereignty of the United States of America and politically integrate the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a trilateral entity called the North American Union.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) calls it a “North American Community,” as if the corrupt culture and government of Mexico can be made to mesh with democratic systems in the U.S. and Canada. It means open borders and more criminal aliens in the U.S.

Accuracy in Media attended a conference on the topic of North American economic and political integration in 2007 which included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

The major media won’t report on this because major Republicans and Democrats are in on it. Much of the scheme was hatched under the Republican administration of George W. Bush, but it is now being carried forward by President Obama.

It turns out that Trump has only scratched the surface of a scandal that threatens American sovereignty and would make it easier for millions more Mexicans to come into the U.S. completely legally.

As he takes on the media in tough interviews and holds his ground, even turning the tables on shallow liberals like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and NBC’s Katy Tur, Trump has found one fellow candidate who is sympathetic. Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said, “I think he’s terrific. I think he’s brash. I think he speaks the truth.”

But this is somewhat ironic since Cruz’s wife, Heidi, an investment banker, was a member of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, which in 2005 developed a plan for a “North American Community.” The recommendations of this panel included a multi-billion dollar North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty, a North American Border Pass to facilitate travel between the countries, and expansion of “temporary worker programs.”

In 2011, when he was running for the Republican Senate nomination, Cruz had called the CFR “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty.”

In addition to serving as a member of the CFR, Mrs. Cruz, a graduate of Harvard Business School, served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Her CFR bio said, “Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.”

Today she is a managing director at the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs in Houston, but is reportedly on leave from the position while her husband runs for president.

Perhaps the key figure in the CFR task force was the late Robert Pastor, a former official of the Carter administration and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. He wrote the book, Toward a North American Community.

President Clinton had nominated Pastor to be Ambassador to Panama after he had been instrumental in the giveaway of our Panama Canal under Jimmy Carter. But the late Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), the then-powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, prevented a vote on his nomination, on the ground that he was aiding radical forces and undermining U.S. interests in the region. Pastor, who had been an official of the Clinton-Gore campaign, withdrew his nomination.

Pastor tried to play down the idea that a North American Community would develop into anything resembling the European Union, which is regarded by many as a bureaucratic entity that can supersede the sovereignty of its member countries.

But the Bush administration was viewed as facilitating the process of creating a North American economic, social and political entity through a process called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The dangers were so great that the late Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus formed a “Coalition to Block the North American Union” in 2007, to highlight how a North American Union would run roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees.

Yet, President Obama has continued the process and, after meeting with the leaders of Mexico and Canada in 2014, said plans for a “North American Transportation Plan” and a “North American Trusted Traveler Program” to facilitate travel and exchanges would go forward. The next North American Leaders’ Summit is scheduled for this fall.

The idea of an annual North American summit meeting was one of the recommendations of that 2005 CFR task force.

Jerry Corsi of WorldNetDaily has noted that the criticism of the CFR put Senator Cruz in an uncomfortable position, since his wife had been a member of the powerful group.

“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America,” Mrs. Cruz said in an additional statement in the CFR report. She also urged that economic investment in the region “be led and perpetuated by the private sector.”

At some point, if Senator Cruz is himself serious about his praise of Donald Trump’s tough stand and comments about illegal immigration, Mrs. Cruz may have to come forward to explain her involvement in the CFR panel’s controversial work.

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/trump-threatens-north-american-union-…

Here is Heidi Cruz’s involvement

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

The Debate and New Englander and Yale Review

Republican presidential contenders Ted Cruz and Donald Trump engaged in a heated debate Thursday night over whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace prevents him from being eligible to hold the office of president.

“You are an American, as is everyone on this stage,” Cruz shot back. “I suggest we focus on who is best prepared to be commander in chief. Because that’s the most important question facing the country.”

Rafael Cruz in typical lawyer style deflecting the issue, negating the law.

Below are screenshots of the New Englander and Yale Review III – 1845

Let’s begin at pg 413 and note the following.

In the intercourse of nations, and in the public law which regulates it, the term ‘ citizen’ is used with respect to our own and other republican governments wherever ‘ subject’ is used with respect to monarchies, and includes all persons under the protection of such government,as owing allegiance to it. For example, the eighth article of the treaty of 1783 stipulates that ” the navigation of the river Mississippi shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.” Under such a usage, in the numerous cases of prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their citizenship, and that on their allegiance.

YR413

on to page 414

The expression ‘ citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘ natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance
by birth to foreign states ; in the other cases, the word ‘ citizen’ issued without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication
that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members.

YR414

Lets look at allegiance on page 417

Our inquiries, therefore, conducted through the several departments of natural and international law, the law and practice under the Constitution, and the municipal law of the states, lead to the conclusion, that the rights and duties which distinguish the status of the citizen, appertain to all free persons born in a state, and so owing allegiance by birth to the state and the United States ;—unless indeed we venture on the desperate alternative of calling in question that cardinal doctrine of the natural and the common law, the doctrine of natural allegiance.

YR417

That being said, here on page 418 is the law of nations,
We conclude, then, that wherever definite personal rights, recognized by the law, depend upon the use of the term citizen,—whether in the law of nations, as received and applied in this country, in treaties, in the Constitution of the United States, in the practice of the Federal Courts, or in the constitutions and bills of rights of the states,—it applies to all persons, who, being born under the jurisdiction of a state or the United States, or having been duly naturalized, owe allegiance and its incidents according to the doctrine of the common law.


YR418B

Bringing that the Law of Nations and the definition of Natural Born Citizenship into one harmonious relationship, again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

 

Rafael Edward Cruz was born to a foreign father (Cuban National) in a foreign country. Rafael Edward Cruz’s own ‘Birth Certificate’ proves it.

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael Edward Cruz is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States. PERIOD!