Menu

Monday, January 18, 2016

WAS TED CRUZ A U.S. CITIZEN AT BIRTH? THE MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT (THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952) WHICH THE RULED OVER HIM SAYS MAYBE, BUT IT ALSO COULD HAVE STRIPPED HIM OF CITIZENSHIP


Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born December 22, 1970. At Ted's birth, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Mccarran-Walter Act) prevailed. That law had been amended a few times through the time of Ted's birth including the well-known Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart–Celler Act) . However that act failed to amend the part of the Mccarran-Walter Act of 1952 that pertains to Ted Cruz.



All should know already that "Ted" Cruz isn't a natural-born citizen because even if he were to be a U.S. citizen, he could only be one by a statute of Congress and not one naturally, by the accident of birth. All need to know these key points:


  • No one can be natural-born citizen who needs the law of Congress to decree his citizenship. 
  • Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to decree anyone natural-born. For that to happen, the constitution would need to be amended. 
  • All bills passed by Congress and signed into law are naturalization laws. 
  • Naturalization laws make artificially-born citizens by decree.
  • All those made into citizens by laws of Congress cannot hold the office of the presidency of the United States by the Constitution.

No law of Congress ever supersedes the Constitution. Congress cannot amend the Constitution. Only states' legislatures can. Congress can merely propose amendments that require two-thirds majority votes in both houses before states' legislatures can vote up or down.

Even if by a loophole in law, at best Cruz would be a naturalized citizen. As he wasn't born under the jurisdiction of Congress, there is no presumption of allegiance to Congress, which is a necessary condition for being natural-born.

In THE 8 U.S. CODE § 1401 DEFENSE OF TED CRUZ FAILS TO SUPPORT CRUZ' NATURAL-BORN CITIZENSHIP, BUT DOES MAKE HIM A CITIZEN., I showed you that by today's law, Ted would be a U.S. citizen by law. Now, we need to discover if Ted Cruz would be deemed a U.S. citizen by Congress at the time of Ted's birth.






Let's go through Section 301 (a) of Public Law 414 of 1952:

Sec. 301. (a)(1)
Disqualifying factor: Ted was not born in the USA.

Sec. 301. (a)(2)
Disqualifying factor: Ted was not born in the USA.

Sec. 301. (a)(3)
Disqualifying factor: Ted's dad was not a U.S. citizen

Sec. 301. (a)(4)
Disqualifying factor: Ted's dad was not a U.S. national

Sec. 301. (a)(5)
Disqualifying factor: Ted was not born in an outlying possession of the United States. Ted was born in Canada.

Sec. 301. (a)(6)
Disqualifying factor: Ted is not of unknown parentage.

Sec. 301. (a)(7)
Qualifying factor: Ted's mom, a U.S. citizen, and Ted's dad, an alien, lived in the USA for the requisite time.

So even under prevailing law, Ted Cruz could have been a U.S. citizen.

However, this is how you know Ted Cruz is not natural-born. Ted Cruz could have lost his citizenship under Section 301(b), which required Ted to show up in the USA before turning 23. Further, as soon as Ted came to the USA, Ted needed to live within the USA for five years continuously. As well, to count those five years, the count could not have started until Ted was 14.

That said, in the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark, USSC robes practically settled what defines natural-born citizenship of the United States. The preponderance of the ruling revolves around the meaning of natural-born. The meaning hinges on presumption of allegiance as an accident of birth.

Unquestionably, Cruz is not a natural-born U.S. citizen because he wasn't born a U.S. Citizen and he was not born under the jurisdiction of Congress. There is no presumption that for Cruz to have natural allegiance to Congress as a consequence of his birth.

No one should believe Cruz is natural-born.

If we're going to have a Constitution, we need to live by it regardless of how it affects any individual. If enough don't like those effects, again, if we're going to live by a Constitution, then they need to change it through amendment.

If we're going to reject the Constitution, let's have a massive civil war and see who can prevail to set up a monarchy.