28.8 F
Chicago
Friday, January 27, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsHeino: No matter what he says, Cruz is not a "natural born"...

Heino: No matter what he says, Cruz is not a “natural born” American

Date:

spot_img

O-TED-CRUZ-facebook

By William Heino Sr. - 

If you see something, say something.

The Music Man, Professor Harold Hill, sold musical instruments. What is Ted Cruz selling?

We the people as citizens, in support of our United States Constitution, cannot let well-intentioned citizens support theories not supported by the Constitution, U.S. law, and the Immigration Act, in order to promote a candidate for President of the United States. 

The United States Constitution, “No Person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office…” 

The qualification being, “No person except a natural born Citizen…” If you are born in the United States you are then, therefore a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Ted Cruz on the other hand, born in Canada in 1970 to a United States citizen is not considered a “ natural born citizen” of the United States, but a “citizen” of the United States. 

Why? The Naturalization Act of 1790 passed three years after the U.S. Constitution was written with the wording, “natural born citizens." However, the 1790 Naturalization Act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 which changed the language from “natural born citizens” to just “citizens.” The change meant to clarify the U.S. Constitution, “No person except a natural born Citizen of the United States …” 

Senator Cruz was born in 1970 to an American citizen while living in Canada. He came to the United States at the age of four in 1974. 

Senator Cruz has a tendency to remind listeners of his knowledge of Constitutional law issues, and apparently Immigration and Nationality law?

One of the requirements of naturalization is, “Can you speak, read, and write basic English and do you have an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics)?” Are we going to stand by and allow an unqualified “citizen” to qualify to run for President of the United States and bypass all 229 years of American law and trash our Constitution? 

Another of the many law references for Senator Cruz to overcome in his quest to “establish justice” is the 1952 amendment to the 1857 Immigration and Naturalization Act. It reads in part,  “…in all other respects, however, the naturalized citizen stands, 'under the Constitution'… on a legal footing with the native citizen’ save as regards eligibility to the Presidency.” (The Constitution and What it Means Today. Page 89. Edward S, Corwin. 1978 Edition Princeton University Press.)

On a whim, Senator Cruz is attempting to rewrite United States history and remake the Supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and all other foreign power. After living in the United States since 1974, 42 years after entering the United States as a  “alien” meaning, any person not a citizen, only then in May of 2014 Senator Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship.

How else do you differentiate two distinct persons in birth? One being born to a United States citizen living in, say for example, Canada? A Canadian at birth. The other being born in the United States. Are we to call them both “natural born citizens“?

But, natural birth happened in two distinct and different sovereigns. Like all law, you need to define each birthplace with a label allowing for the difference, because the courts will not let you get away with it.

And further troubling is Senators Cruz’s response to a question of family citizenship, his response, “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.”

I, like Penn and Teller, am not fooled.

William Heino Sr.

Bourbannais, Illinois 

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

7 COMMENTS

  1. This is a silly debate. Suppose any American woman who is pregnant is travelling with her American husband and their plane happens to touch down at any airport outside the United States as she goes into labor and gives birth to a baby. You are trying to say that baby is not a natural born citizen of the U.S.? Ridiculous. The Illinois State Board of Elections has already ruled on this and they said Cruz remains on the ballot in Illinois. Was George Washington ineligible to serve as president because he was born in Virginia before it was a state?

  2. I’m not so sure about that, Mark. Was the father of Cruz a U.S. citizen? If not, Cruz is an anchor baby, having a dual citizenship.
    I was taught when I attended high school in the early fifties that natural born meant that the individual running for president had to be sired from parents, both of whom were first generation Americans living in the U.S. Perhaps I’m incorrect, but was the father of Cruz a U.S. citizen?
    In the case of John McCain, both of his parents were U.S. citizens even though he wasn’t born on U.S. soil. Cruz theoretically is an anchor baby. Although I have nothing against Cruz, Cruz is not a natural born citizen in the full sense of the word.
    Nevertheless, this issue needs further vetting by the Supreme Court. And putting trust in what the Illinois Board of Elections has decided doesn’t mean a thing to me. It’s judgment was nothing but a political one.
    I did find silly your reference to George Washington, Mark, knowing how well you write and your common sense approach to writing. But of course you must be a Cruz supporter, which is fine and dandy.

  3. Cruz’s father was not an American citizen at the time of Ted Cruz’ birth.
    And I agree with you Nancy, both parents must be American citizens at the time of birth for the baby to be born a natural born citizen. Where the child is born is unimportant, the baby is a natural born citizen by virtue of his/her parents citizenship.
    Neither Obama, Rubio, or Cruz are a NBC.
    Obama is a perfect example of why the framers didn’t want a president who had divided loyalties…. Obama’s father had no allegiance to America, and it shows.
    But like Obama, Cruz will be on the ballot. Rule of law & morality is a thing of the past in this country….. I’m beginning to write the book, “The Rise and Fall of America; How Stupid Won Out”

  4. George Washington was eligible to serve as president Because the constitution says he was eligible.
    Art. II, §1, cl. 5 reads:
    “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.”
    Without the clause “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” no one in colonial America would have been eligible to be president. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, no one could possibly meet the requirements without the addition of “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
    No natural born citizen of the US could possibly be 35 years old at the adoption of the constitution in 1789, because America wasn’t 35 years old and being 35 years old is one of the requirements to attain the presidency.

  5. Canada and the United States both allow for dual citizenship vis-a-vis each other. His mother is a U.S. citizen. If Canada did not have dual citizenship, Cruz would be Canadian. However, since Canada DOES have dual citizenship, Cruz was initially both. Individuals with dual citizenship can retain that or choose to renounce one, often for tax reasons. Canadians with dual citizenship sometimes renounce U.S. citizenship because the IRS goes after them for U.S. taxes (not surprisingly). Canada has dual citizenship because of their relationship with England and births to English parents working in Canada. There is reciprocity between our two countries. According to Nancy Thorner’s logic, Obama wasn’t eligible to run for president either, even less so, since his mother was only 18 years old and didn’t meet the residency requirements (5 years before the birth of the child).

  6. I don’t believe Obama was eligible to run for president, and therein lies the problem. Since Obama was allowed to run, Cruz must be granted the same privilege, which shows how little the Constitution means when the original intent of the Constitution conflicts with the political realm and its dictates.