Natural born citizen -
References - internet links to documents for determining types of citizenship
The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "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."[12] The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13] ‪#‎defeatisil‬

The Federalist Papers
( The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.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 conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen. 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." )
N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship
collections of articles
Senator Cruz, you can count on me, and a million other Americans, to support and defend our Constitution, to include Article II, Section 1!

You know that Obama is not a natural born citizen and yet you were never willing to do or say anything about it. And you know that you are not one either, and yet you push us aside and feign ignorance of the real meaning of the term. As JB Williams writes:

The answer is found in the Founders statements identifying the source of the term, Vattel’s international treatise on Natural Law, The Law of Nations, book 1 – Chapter XIX. Every American can easily find it, read it, understand it and know it. There is nothing at all ambiguous about it… unless you let your political agenda drive your facts.

The true definition of the natural born Citizen requirement for the Oval Office as described throughout the entirety of Chapter XIX can be summed up in this section from 212…

“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.”

Barack Obama’s Father was never a U.S. Citizen. And your father, Senator Cruz, was never a U.S. citizen either, until he naturalized 35 years after your birth. You remained a legal citizen of Canada until you renounced your Canadian citizenship on May 14, 2014.

Also this: In a 2012 interview you said this:

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don't have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”

Cruz: “I would agree.”

This would confirm that you know, without any reasonable doubt, that neither you, nor Obama, are natural born (US) citizens. It would also confirm that you are knowingly conspiring to commit treason, since usurpation of the Office of POTUS by fraud, deception, dissembling, and deceit is equivalent to an act of war against our sovereign Nation and States.

This would also make you either a natural born (Cuban) citizen, or an ‘anchor-baby’ Canadian citizen, or, since you have formally renounced your Canadian citizenship, a man without a country … until you apply for formal naturalization as a U.S. citizen (if you have, please show us) – too late to become a natural born (US) citizen, since this is a condition achieved only at the moment of birth!

I will conclude with this statement that I make to every lying political hack who asks for my support but refuses to support the Constitution and call for Obama’s impeachment … yesterday!


It is an act of TREASON for an unknown entity and admitted non-natural born Citizen of the U.S. to usurp the Office of President of the United States using proven-to-be forged ID’s (Certificate of Birth & Selective Service Registration) and a self-published SS# 042-68-4425 that fails the government’s own E-Verify and SS# Verification systems for employment in the United States.

Paying homage to and legitimization of that unknown and undocumented entity who uses forged and stolen identification documents, by calling him ‘The President’, is to be knowingly complicit in that act of TREASON!

Therefore anyone who calls that undocumented entity ‘President’ becomes him or herself a Treasonous Co-Conspirator! (

So the real question now, Senator Cruz, is can We The People count on you to do the right thing and withdraw you candidacy and expose the imposter in the Oval Office?

In Liberty and In Truth.

Neil B. Turner
Citizens for the Constitution
He may have if he was a real natural born citizen of the United States.. BUT he is not. Neither is Obama, Rubio or Jindal. Pelosi and her progressive communist democrats pulled a lying scam on people and so far, the traitors to our country have gotten by with it because SHEEPLE are not taught GOVERNMENT anymore. There are differences in TYPES OF CITIZENS and Cruz, Obama, Rubio and Jindal are a SUB-TYPE of NATURALIZED CITIZENS created by LAWS. Natural born citizens do not need any laws, they are born IN THEIR COUNTRY TO A PAIR OF CITIZEN PARENTS. Their mother and father are both US Citizens BEFORE THEY ARE BORN. A naturalized citizen can have a single US parent and can be born in another country but THEY CAN NEVER BE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS BY DEFINITION.
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.
In 1898, Supreme Court Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark stated “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, ... by authority of Congress, exercised ... by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens ...” [See:] That statement clearly indicates that children of citizens who are born outside US Territory, who gain their citizenship by Congressional statute are naturalized. In other words, simply having citizen parents isn’t enough to make a natural born citizen!

In 1951, Chief Judge Phillips in delivering the opinion in the case of Zimmer v. Acheson for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said of someone who was born outside the United States to two US citizen parents, acquiring their citizenship under Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401), that the nature of their citizenship “status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.” [See:]

In 1956, Judge Hamley, in delivering the opinion in the case of Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles for the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a case pertaining to two men born outside the United States to a naturalized US citizen father, noted that Revised Statutes § 1993 (the precursor of todays 8 USC 1401) is “a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.” [See:]

And in 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who just 4 years earlier had written the majority opinion in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, had the following observation to make of foreign-born children of US citizens; “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”

It appears that the position of the courts for well over a century is that foreign born children of US citizens who acquire their citizenship wholly through Congressional statutes are “naturalized” citizens.