In many comments yesterday, and in a diary last night that was not so well received (http://www.dailykos.com/...), I've tried my best to show that the latest Ted Cruz publicity stunt about releasing his birth certificate is bullshit.
For my troubles, I've been called a "birther" by several people whose apparent intellectual capacity must not include the ability to tie shoelaces.
I should let this rest, perhaps, but I think we Democrats might have an issue here. It's worth nailing down.
I wouldn't have written another diary on this until I saw CNN's first-tier "legal analyst" Jeffrey Toobin yucking it up about this this morning with Ashleigh Banfield. I usually respect both of them, as much as one can respect someone in that kind of position. But I was appalled today because almost every single thing they said about Cruz's citizenship was WRONG.
As I said last night, this is more proof of my old maxim that news stories are always full of error, and the more you know, the more you see.
Toobin, the supposed legal genius, asserted that Cruz must be a "natural born" U.S. citizen, and thus eligible to be president, because he was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother. He did. I saw him say that. As I saw many people say that yesterday, including Josh Marshall on TPM.COM (who is ALWAYS wrong when it comes to U.S. immigration law, and never corrects himself) and many here.
But that is WRONG. And it's not wrong as a matter of opinion, it's wrong as a matter of black-and-white law, in an area where there is no possibility of reasonable dispute.
It is NOT clear from what we know to date that Cruz was a U.S. citizen automatically at birth. Maybe he was. But he is a VERY smart graduate of Harvard Law School (and a VERY dangerous man) and I kind of wonder why he didn't give more information. This might really be an issue.
Contrary to Toobin and many others here who have offered their "opinions" and "beliefs" on this, the law is CLEAR.
One does NOT automatically become a U.S. citizen at birth because one's parent, or parents, are U.S. citizens!
In addition to that, one needs to show that the parent or parents meet strictly defined requirements regarding age and time of residence in the United States.
The Unites States is actually much more generous than most countries in according citizenship. But it always has had strict rules that require some kind of close ties to the country in order to gain citizenship.
Under the nationality law in effect at the time of Ted Cruz's birth in Canada in December 1970 (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, part of Title 8 of the U.S. Code), in order for Ted Cruz's mother to automatically confer citizenship on him at birth, these requirements need to have been met:
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
The person's parents were married at the time of birth
One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
Cruz, that crafty devil, didn't disclose anything about that. So maybe he was a U.S. citizen at birth. Or maybe not. WE DON'T AND CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW at this point. So it drives me nuts to hear so many idiots like Josh Marshall and Jeffrey Toobin and many here state that they're CERTAIN that he was a citizen at birth. WE HAVE NO IDEA. And I smell a fish in super-smart Cruz not saying anything about this.
The U.S. Constitution says that to be eligible for president, a person must be a "natural born" citizen. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS! The U.S. Supreme Court has never resolved the question. Most legal scholars, including me, think that means that a person must have become a citizen at birth, one way or the other. So this is a very open area for debate.
Today I noticed many news stories, responding mindlessly to press releases from Cruz, say that Cruz had "renounced" his Canadian citizenship. That too is bullshit! Canada has a complicated process for renouncing citizenship, involving paying a fee to file a big form and then waiting (perhaps a long time) for an administrative adjudication. So that's ANOTHER LIE from Cruz. But I saw stupid Jeffrey Toobin on CNN, and the CNN chyron, and many other sources today saying he had DONE IT. LIE!!!
Think about this: Why would he make an issue of this right now? The answer is obvious. Unlike Obama, he has a REAL PROBLEM, and it's not the dual citizenship/loyalty problem (although that would be a political liability).
So here's my question: I don't want to see a fricking Canadian birth certificate!!!
I want to see the documents that show how Cruz supposedly got U.S. citizenship!
That does NOT FUCKING MAKE ME A BIRTHER! (I'm still outraged at how I was stupidly and ignorantly attacked on that yesterday.)
I want to see him prove up his mother's age and dates of residence within the United States and Canada and how exactly he got documentation proclaiming him a U.S. citizen. Maybe it was all legit. But as I said, I smell a fish. This is an issue to be pursued.
Without going into the details, I have shown here many times that: (1) McCain was not, in fact, eligible for the presidency, because he was NOT a U.S. citizen upon his birth in the Canal Zone, although Congress later declared such people retroactively to be U.S. citizens; and (2) Obama was certainly a natural born citizen, since he was born in Hawaii, a U.S. state; but if he had been born outside the United States, he would NOT have been a U.S. citizen at birth, because his mother was just a few months too young, under the legalistic rules set forth above.
THIS IS NOT BIRTHERISM. This is LAW. Democrats absolutely must demand more details from Cruz, for he is a VERY dangerous man.
Addendum: Kossack Walt starr, who I think is wrong on almost everything, was ragging incoherently on me yesterday, claiming that "Birthers" (as he was calling me) believe in "three or four" kinds of "magical" citizenship. He is too incoherent to properly refute. But for the record, under U.S. law, there are THREE ways to acquire U.S. citizenship: (1) birth in the United States, if subject to the jurisdiction thereof (that is, not a diplomat) (see 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution); (2) naturalization; and (3) acquisition of citizenship due to birth outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents (see INA for 2 and 3).
For thousands of years nationality (citizenship) law has made a basic distinction between "jus soli" and "jus sanguinus." The first expression means law of the soil, the second means law of the blood. The United States has a very generous nationality law in permitting both jus soli AND jus sanguinus, under conditions rendered by the U.S. Congress. That means one can become a U.S. citizen at birth in two ways: (1) by birth on U.S. soil; or (2) by birth outside the United States if one has certain blood ties.
Many (and I think most) countries are more restrictive. For example, most Middle Eastern countries do not grant citizenship to many people born on their soil who do not have the correct bloodlines. That's why so many Palestinians are literally stateless. Similarly, some advanced countries like Germany do not recognize jus soli citizenship for persons born on their soil from, for instance, Turkish workers.
Conclusion In conclusion, all of this is MUCH more complicated than many people assume, and it is NOT clear so far that Cruz is a U.S. citizen, much less a "natural born" citizen eligible to the presidency. (I'm not seriously challenging his U.S. citizenship, just asserting strongly that it has NOT been established by that Canadian birth certificate he just pompously released.)
UPDATE: In the diary I relied on the summary of the law in the Wikipedia article about U.S. nationality laws, because it was in accord with my memory. For the record, I'd like to also give this more authoritative link: http://travel.state.gov/... That's from the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs.
As this interesting discussion has proceeded, I've come to think it is likely (but so far still not proved) that Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth. I'd like to see him pressed to prove it, not just assert it. He should get at least some of the scrutiny that has so obsessively been given to President Obama's citizenship status.
And finally, I'm dismayed (although not really surprised, knowing DKos) that some people with poor reading skills have angrily called me a "birther." Nothing could be further from the truth. I appreciate the wise and supportive voices who understand that.