tedcruz-eligible3Investigating the “Birther Right”-Citizenship issue regarding Ted Cruz is very tough since there is a long trail between Cuba, the United States (US), to Canada and back to the US in his family history.  In question is Cruz’s mother’s status and the law between 1970, his birth year and 1974 when he and his family moved back to the States.

Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson was born in Wilmington, Delaware which you can see on Ted’s birth certificate. He’s never denied he was born in Canada and he’s never denied his parents lived there for 12 years.

There’s no issue on Rafael Cruz’s side, Ted’s dad. He is Cuban born, went to work in the US on a “green card” work visa, moved to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. He never had US citizenship until just recently when he received it in 2005.

What is at issue is Ted’s mom, Eleanor’s status. Between 1947 and 1977, Canada didn’t allow dual citizenship when it awarded Canadian citizenship to applicants. She definitely applied and received Canadian citizenship around 1970, according to Ted’s dad. When she did, it was implied she had renounced her US citizenship according to Canadian law since nothing was required to prove renunciation of citizenship in another country. Whether she did or not renounce her US citizenship at that time is the question and so far, she’s tight lipped on the subject.

Ted birth certCanadian law doesn’t matter to US law. It’s US law which makes the difference and during this time the United States only cared if a person signed a legal form of renunciation which is no where to be found in her case.

What’s even more interesting about this situation is, at the time of Ted’s birth, his mother would have had to declare his citizenship if it was in question. However, to the Canadians, there was no question since Eleanor had gotten her Canadian citizenship implying she’d renounced her US status.

According to Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, Cruz was definitely a Canadian citizen until just recently when he renounced his status in 2014 to run for US President. However again, it’s the US law that actually counts and what his mother did in relationship to renouncing her US status in order to receive her Canadian citizenship in 1970.

This is the loophole, Cruz’s mother most likely used to re-enter the United States as a US citizen meaning, back when she applied to be a Canadian citizen, she would have had to lie as she would have had to know Canadian law to receive her citizenship and vote in their elections which she did as per Canadian records.

Omission is still a lie according to some legal scenarios. This entire birther issue is why Cruz continues to say he’s a natural born US citizen.

constitution_thumb_295_dark_gray_bgBut the question still remains, because up to Cruz’s run for President, most people in the US and US military assumed if they weren’t born on American soil, regardless of the location, they are ineligible for President.

I have friends and one relative born in Germany because their parents were stationed abroad during their military years. Each one has said at one time or another, they can’t run for President. Apparently, these people are mistaken if we believe Cruz.

The US Constitution clearly states “natural born citizen” regarding eligibility for President:

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…

Natural born, by world standards, means within the borders of a country’s actual soil including any military bases abroad.  To be eligible for President, you’d have to be born on the base which would be considered “American soil” and not at the country’s hospital. Most women opt to go the local hospital for birthing, thereby rendering the child ineligible for US presidency if a US citizen is born abroad.

Other than that, naturalized and natural born are still the issue. Why would the Founding Fathers put this rhetoric in the Constitution if it wasn’t relevant? Personally, I didn’t take this as rocket science until liberals got involved and those supporting Cruz no matter what he does.

Ted Cruz w parentsThe courts have ruled Cruz is eligible to run for President, and it seems as if they could be correct according to the lie his mother lived during her Canadian citizenship. There’s no other scenario that fits as far as I’ve been able to gather from the research.

Therefore, we can pretty much clearly state, Cruz’s mother was breaking Canadian law during her citizenship in Canada if she was still keeping her US citizenship which she apparently was. If someone would have found out about her fraud, she could have had her citizenship revoked in Canada and deported to the United States. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

Now we know why Cruz thinks lying is a great way to run a campaign. He learned it from his parents, specifically his mother.

Looks like in the Cruz family, lying is standard as is preaching at people and acting as if it’s okay to lie, cheat and steal as long as you’re them. Guess we can tear the 10 Commandments out of their Bibles!

UPDATE NOTE: It is reported by CNN and Rick Wells, Ted Cruz has never filed a CRBA Form which is a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. Will this be the demise of the Cruz Campaign?



Ted Cruz Citizenship Timeline

Ted Cruz Citizenship – Dallas Morning News

History of Canadian Citizenship Law



Dave B. · April 20, 2016 at 12:07 am

Seems to me this whole article depends upon one piece of misinformation–
“She (Cruz’s mother) definitely applied and received Canadian citizenship around 1970, according to Ted’s dad.”
No, that’s not “according to Ted’s dad.” That’s according to one internet gossip after another, repeating that unfounded rumor. And it seems to me the only purpose in repeating that gossip here is to smear Cruz’s mother. Whose idea of conservative values is that?
The article also makes some erroneous general claims.

“Natural born, by world standards, means within the borders of a country’s actual soil including any military bases abroad. To be eligible for President, you’d have to be born on the base which would be considered “American soil” and not at the country’s hospital.”
There’s no such thing as “world standards” for natural born citizenship. Each country decides who its own citizens are according to its own laws, and for most countries, the primary principle of citizenship is citizenship by descent, not by place of birth. For purposes of US citizenship, “military bases abroad” are indistinguishable from the surrounding territory. It is completely irrelevant whether a person born outside the United States is born inside or outside a US military base. From the US State Department:

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth,” Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, 7 FAM 1110, 1113(c)(1).

    April LaJune · April 20, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    LOL – you’re hilarious! Ted Cruz’s father did say that both himself and his wife received their citizenship in Canada at the same time. Apparently you think this is fiction, however time and time again, he’s said this. It’s not news and it’s not misinformation or a fantasy.

    And yes, some things aren’t rocket science and there is a “world standard” of understanding that doesn’t need to be explained when you’re talking to people of a different country. It’s pretty much an easy concept, apparently lost on you.

    You’re under the impression that liberals views are the standard and your little quote there actually proved exactly what I was saying therefore, you’re either a complete inept moron or just trying to defend Cruz because you’re an ass kisser.

    This entire article is about the “fact” Cruz’s mother had Canadian citizenship during the time Canada didn’t allow dual citizenship. Therefore, she would be lying to authorities of Canada about her US citizenship. My God, get out a crayon and connect the dots. It’s not that hard to figure out for most. Obviously, you’re part of a minority.

    And yes, it does discredit him and his mother as it should. He wants to appear as if he’s a Constitutional Christian upholding the law then why is he lying and avoiding the truth?

    And another thing – why doesn’t he have to file a CRBA when the rest of the people born abroad have to file it? It’s there for a reason, but then again, Cruz doesn’t care about the truth. He only cares about lies, half-truths and pretending as if he’s the “Anointed One.”

    Sorry buddy, your comment proves my point.

      Dave B. · April 21, 2016 at 7:52 pm

      All right, how about an actual quote from Cruz’s father to that effect? If he’s said this “time and time again,” you shouldn’t have any trouble providing one, should you?
      Nobody born abroad has to apply for a CRBA. A CRBA is a purely optional form of proof-of-citizenship document. It’s by far the best course to take to obtain one for a US citizen child born abroad, but it’s not a requirement of citizenship.

        April LaJune · April 23, 2016 at 5:11 pm

        The problem with the CRBA is that we don’t know if that particular document applied in 1974. That’s one thing. However the quotes are from Ted’s book as is the timeline.

          Dave B. · April 23, 2016 at 6:38 pm

          I don’t understand what you mean by “if that particular document applied in 1974.” CRBA’s have been issued for over a hundred years, but have always been optional and voluntary, and not a requirement of citizenship.
          Just saying “the quotes are from Ted’s book” isn’t providing an actual quote. Do you have an actual quote– in his own exact words– where Rafael B. Cruz said his wife became a Canadian citizen, and if she did so, when?For that matter, do you have a reference to “Ted’s book” where it says Cruz’s mother became a Canadian citizen, and if so, when?

Bud Parker · April 12, 2018 at 12:12 am

Well, the question that eludes most people is; “What, precisely did the Founders of this Nation understand “Natural Born Citizen” to mean? Most learned scholars attribute the phrase to Vattel’s “Law of Nations” that they had three copies of during the time preceding the creation of the USA. Realize that there were absolutely zero Federal Laws or documents so they used Law of Nations (even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence).

The Supreme Court has even articulated what that term means in quite a few decisions early in the Nation’s history. Here are some of them; I have provided links to the SCOTUS website for your research at the end of each decision.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.


Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.


Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .


Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *