Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Debating champion

Article says Cruz was a top debater, "winning the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship . . ." Ted cruiz looks like kermit the frog

As best I can tell from the listings at the American Forensic Association, Princeton didn't send anyone to the 1992 National Debate Tournament. In the list of top speakers, Cruz is not among the top 20, nor was a Princeton team among the top 25. Top speaker in 1992 was Charles Smith of Iowa. See results here: http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/NDT%20results%201987-1996%20%2841-50%29.pdf

Also see here: http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/results.html

Is the article referring to something other than the American Forensic Association's National Debate Tournament? That should be more clearly spelled out, if there is another contest referred to.Edarrell (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made changes to reflect information in source provided. Almost everything in this article was a gross overstatement of information contained in sources, but I have removed the fluff. Folks are welcome to put it back, but only with legitimate sources. Revmqo (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is a gun rights advocate.

And here is my source: http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=15654

I am adding him to that category. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Very good article, but when there is a reference to an "advocate" in the Wikipedia categories they mean someone whose main vocation is advocating for x. In this case, Ted Cruz would have to be advocating full time for gun rights, which is not what he does. His full time job is U.S. Senator. As a U.S. Senator he does advocate for gun rights, but it is not the ONLY issue that he advocates. He advocates for a balanced budget, for example, and he is pro-life, for example. He is not merely a gun rights Senator. Before he was a U.S. Senator his full time job was constitutional rights attorney, which involved working on gun rights issues, but was not the only constitutional issue that he advocated. He has handled tons of federalism case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that have nothing to do with gun rights. Now, Ted Nugent is a rock singer, but right now he has a job whose main point is advocating for gun rights (i.e., spokesman for the NRA), therefore, Nugent meets the criteria of the category.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The point for the policy is that any one that ever expressed a pro-gun rights position would be eligible for the category, essentially making the category unless.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you just admitted he advocated for gun rights, therefore he is a gun rights advocate. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did state without question that he does advocate for gun rights; however, that does not mean that he meets the criteria of the category. To meet the criteria of the category advocating for gun rights has to be a full time job where he gets paid to specifically advocate on the behalf of gun rights. You have not provided a reliable source that indicates that he works a full time job as a "gun rights advocate." Please provide one.----ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz's Canadian birth

Ted Cruz was born in Canada, so he is Canadian born. Neosiber (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this true. The article mentions the fact that Cruz was born in Calgary in two places: (1) in the info box, and (2) in the "Early life and education" section. There is no logical reason to mention to say that he is "Canadian-born" a third time. That is overkill.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate knowing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

He could still be president, [1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out another great article that specifically covers Ted Cruz's situation. It is not a general discussion of every person who thought about running or did run in the past for President, but the article that you pointed to goes over, just like the "Texplainer" article from the Texas Tribune above does, Ted Cruz's very specific situation and the article essentially, once again, blows away any arguments that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for President. For the information of future editors of this Ted Cruz article you can see the article that editor Charles Edwin Shipp has pointed to here: Graham, David A. "Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.--The Calgary-born Texas senator is considering a bid for the Oval Office. Let's nip those birther questions in the bud right now.", The Atlantic, May 1, 2013 (David A. Graham is an associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Politics Channel. He previously reported for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and The National.)--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, for future editors, adding the phrase "Canadian-born" in the opening paragraph, not only is overkill, as I pointed out above, it also violates MOS (See here Wikipedia:OPENPARA), BLP, and NPOV.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an article on whether or not Cruz is eligible to run for President doesn't end the discussion by any means. If it becomes a notable topic of discussion in the future, it's still suitable for his Wikipedia page. Dayewalker (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as to the topic of whether or not he is eligible to run for president the topic is closed. The one and only thing that could potentially reopen it is if there is a reliable source that soundly backs up the claim that he is ineligible to run for president. You did not mention a reliable source to back up your comments so at this point the status quo as I outlined it above still applies. Now, that is not to say that it cannot be discussed on the Wikipedia page, but the notion that there is a credible other side to the argument, without any reliable sources, is a complete non-starter.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but absolutely not. You're confusing opinions with the purpose of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't here to establish firmly that Cruz is or is not legally allowed to run for President. You're saying just because you have two editorials that say he can, that's the end of the matter. In Wikipedia terms, that's just one side of the story. It's not an issue so far because he's not running for the office, but if he does and it becomes an actual controversy, both sides of the matter will have to be reported. Right now, Wikipedia has no business reporting in absolute terms one way or the other whether he's eligible for the office. Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is a settled matter. I'm saying that at this time there is no reliable source to back up a opposite point of view.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't settle the issue either, but well-known liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz commented on Cruz's eligibility yesterday. He clearly stated that he believes that Cruz is eligible. You can review that interview here: Johnson, Charles C. Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students, Daily Caller, May 9, 2013--add another reliable source to the side of eligibility.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all English speaking North Americans care only about Cruz's US citizenship. Some think his Canadian citizenship is something we should be proud of. Some English speakers are Canadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.49.144 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Political positions edit

I made an edit to the political positions section of this page on June 17 which changed:

"Cruz is a gun rights supporter." to "Cruz is an advocate for not banning assault weapons and not requiring background checks to purchase firearms."

This was based on reading the article cited for the statement. Article link: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/29/ted-cruz-my-gop-senate-colleagues-yelled-at-me-for-wanting-to-filibuster-gun-control/ The article says that Cruz was critical in opposing an assault weapons ban and in preventing an amendment that would have expanded requirements for background checks. Since the article doesn't identify him as a supporter of gun rights by those actions, I thought that describing what the article says he did was more accurate.

My change was reverted as "incorrect characterization" by Galvan666. He left a note on my talk page (thanks!) and asked me to reply at Galvan666's talk page with any questions about the revert. I did.

From Galvan666's talk page history: "Hey Galvan666, thanks for the heads up about the reversion. I read the cited source for that line and thought the article didn't explicitly state that Ted Cruz was a gun rights supporter, but did state that he was against creating laws that would ban assault weapons or require background checks. I thought it made more sense to say what the article said than to infer "gun rights supporter" from it, but you called it an "incorrect characterization" in your reversion. I don't think it's an incorrect characterization, but I have been wrong in the past so I am curious what you think is incorrect about that phrasing. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I went back and reread my version and the article. I think I see the problem. I wrote that he was "an advocate... for not requiring background checks to purchase firearms." which is far too broad for what the article said and almost certainly isn't true. It would have been more accurate to say that he is "an advocate... for not adding new requirements for background checks to purchase firearms." Would you find that characterization to be at least less incorrect if not correct? 198.204.141.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

He is a "gun rights supporter". This is true. It should not have been removed. We do not define the people in bios by what they are not, but by what they are.--Galvan666 (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)"

I think there's room for leaving in "gun rights supporter" without reverting or removing more detailed descriptions of what *makes* Ted Cruz a gun rights supporter. I would certainly not advocate for leaving my original edit in since it was much too overbroad for me to say that he was "an advocate... for not requiring background checks to purchase firearms". I think that having the actions he takes as a Senator that make him a "gun rights supporter" (that particular line is what the citation is supposed to support) described makes for a better overall article. If "gun rights supporter" had its own page then that could be hyperlinked so that interested people could look up what makes a Senator a gun rights supporter. That phrase does appear in more than a few places so maybe there should be an article for it? Until that time though I think there's no reason to leave out what the cited article actually says in favor of something that doesn't appear in it. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In the beginning of the page, it lists Ted Cruz as a junior Senator. His current term is his first term, which would make him a freshman senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt thecookie (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

He is a freshman senator in the sense that he's in his first term. He's also the junior senator from Texas because the other senator has more service in the Senate than him. In that regard, it makes more sense to describe him as just "the junior United States Senator from the State of Texas". —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in the first sentence of the article: missing "is." Thanks

Fixed - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Upright

Ted Cruz giving a speech to the Montgomery County Republican Party meeting held in Conroe, Texas on August 19, 2013.

Under Ted Cruz#Legal career, please add upright, changing :

[[:File:Ted Cruz at Montgomery County Republican Party meeting, Conroe, Texas, August 19, 2013.jpg|thumb|Ted Cruz giving a speech to the Montgomery County Republican Party meeting held in Conroe, Texas on August 19, 2013.]]

to

[[:File:Ted Cruz at Montgomery County Republican Party meeting, Conroe, Texas, August 19, 2013.jpg|thumb|upright|Ted Cruz giving a speech to the Montgomery County Republican Party meeting held in Conroe, Texas on August 19, 2013.]]

Thanks. 67.100.127.173 (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done -Ryan 02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Early Life

It's worth noting that the "Early Life" section says that he was born in Canada, and then goes on to describe his parents' lives before he was born. There is nothing in that section that is actually about his life other than the location of his birth. The next section picks up with where he went to high school in Texas. What happened in between? How and why did he and his family move from Canada to Texas, and did they live anywhere in between? It would be more fitting to the "Early Life" title if there was actually something about his early life in there. Dannyburd (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please edit the article with this information if you have a reliable source for it and it is written in a NPOV manner. Go for it!--Bing Norton 14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) --Bing Norton 14:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

He was the first Hispanic elected U.S. Senator from Texas

The source provided [2] does not support the assertion that he was the first Hispanic US Senator from Texas. He may very well be, but the source does not say that. Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The source says "Cruz, who becomes Texas' first ever Latino U.S. Senator". Unless I'm missing something, seems noncontroversial to me. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Cruzing towards a 70% tax rate

Cruz posts his approval of Revenue Act of 1964, with 70% tax rate.

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/statuses/371072161911668736

We need a third party on this? Hcobb (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Citizenship

Today's NYT article which starts on page A18 states he was born in Canada. That he is currently a Texas politician suggests that he is also American. The article also states that his father fought against Batista. Please someone dig up whther his father was also Canadian or is merely Cuban-American and had his son born in Canada merely to make his son Canadian? 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.70.163 (talk)

No one needs to dig up anything. The article clearly states that he was born in Calgary while his parents were there on business, and that his father is Cuban American. Arbor8 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that because his mom was an American at the time of Ted's birth, he would be a citizen at birth. However there has not been any national discussion of Cruz and the presidency yet. All that's been with Rubio who was born in America. I guess we should say that Cruz is a dual Canadian and American citizen. He hasn't renounced his Canadian citizenship ... yet. Lingust (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, we "should not say that Cruz is a dual Canadian and American citizen." That would be your opinion. Do you have a reliable source to support your probably incorrect opinion? Canada is not the U.S., in case you have not noticed, and they do not have the same laws. They do NOT give automatic citizenship to someone just because they are born in Canada. They do give automatic citizenship to a child born in Canada who has at least one parent who is a Canadian citizen. Neither of Cruz's parents were Canadian citizens. Please do not put your opinion in the article. I removed your opinion filled edit from a few minutes ago. Please only edit the article with facts that are supported by reliable sources.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you feel stupid now? or merely ignorant? Finally would you admit Canada claims people as citizens based on birth "Jus Soli"? Lingust (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Senator Cruz was born a citizen of both Canada and the United States. You don't know what you're talking about. See Canadian Citizenship Act 1946, Jus soli. I don't know whether Cruz is presently a citizen of Canada. -197.136.42.3 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a question not an argument: Is Cruz barred from becoming President by virtue of his birthplace? Either way it is probably worth mentioning in the article. Silent Billy (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he is not barred from becoming President in any way.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@revmqo is correct. You (ExclusiveAgent) are full of BS! You clearly haven't followed the thread. And based on your history of posts, it is entirely fair to say that you bully other editors! Time to get a life! 198.228.228.43 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The New Yorker website carries an article "The Party Next Time" (dated 19 November 2012) which says He might even run for President in 2016. Though he was born in Canada, he informed me that he was qualified to serve. “The Constitution requires that one be a natural-born citizen,” he said, “and my mother was a U.S. citizen when I was born. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/19/121119fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2C3fctYSY

That would likely need to be litigated. It is far from obvious that that statement is true. If it were, then there would have been ZERO controversy over Obama/Kenya since his mother was a U.S. citizen. Silicon retina (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No and No. Neither Cruz or Obama are disqualified from running for President--assuming that Obama was born outside of the U.S. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, which means even if Obama was born in Kenya (which did not happen, he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya) then Obama would still be eligible as a natural U.S. Citizen, just like Cruz. See: Law Professor Eugene Volokh on Natural-Born Citizen Law.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That link is shit, Agent. It's Volokh's clarification of "a conversation" with the Chicago Tribune regarding Ann Dunham's age at the time of President Obama's birth and how that might be applied to 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) if Obama had been born outside of the United States. I guess you could have muddled it more by linking to a blog archive that linked out to, what was at the time you offered it, some guy's dating and relationship blog. Oh, that's what you did ("You 404’d it. Gnarly, dude."). I think you meant to link Rumor calls Obama's birth certificate fake. "Any person born in the U.S. automatically is a 'natural born citizen,' said University of California Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh. . . . Even if a person is born outside the United States, courts have ruled any child born to at least one U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen, Volokh said. Stanley Ann Dunham would have counted even if Obama's Kenyan father did not." Ukranian SSR-native Volokh elides the question of "natural-born citizen" in the latter part of that quote.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear 75.111.78.220: Your comments above make no sense. I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense. Obama was eligible to serve as POTUS and, of course, is and all of the legal challenges to his service have gone no where--except in the mind's demented individuals. McCain was eligible to serve as POTUS and, of course, got the Republican nomination and there were zero effective legal challenges. And Cruz is eligible to serve, but he has not even stated that he is even planning on running so this debate is premature. However, if there was some truth of the rumor of him running then it is clear by reviewing the only definitive article written on the exact subject of Cruz's eligibility (not Obama's, not McCain's, not George Romney's, but Ted Cruz's eligibility) that Cruz is eligible. I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you about that subject, but what you provided above is mere unexplainable junk.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been a legal challenge for Cruz yet, since no one has standing to file. Also, there has been no definitive ruling to define what "natural born citizen" means. You seem to think this issue is already resolved, but it is far from resolved. Only time, and in this case a lawsuit filed by someone with standing, will put this issue to rest. Making unsupportable claims, which anything definitive in either extreme, at this point is not only unwarranted but is also absurd. Revmqo (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comments above. Thank you for seeing my point exactly. I agree that you probably should not make definitive statements because the definitive statements that you have made in the past are absurd, for example, you stated previously, "In any event, there would clearly be grounds to file lawsuits which would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and this would likely be an impassable hurdle for a candidate." That statement is, to quote you directly, absurd. Anyone can file lawsuits, but as we have seen on this issue, over decades, that most courts, no matter where they are in the system, treat the issue as a "political issue" and just look for reasons to dismiss the challenges for "lack of standing" and other not on-point rationales, just like they did in the McCain challenges and the Obama challenges. No, your statement is clearly absurd because you don't know that any challenge would go all the way to the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no solid court case evidence to support that absurd wild speculation on your part, but you said it anyway, now that is the wild speculation for you. As a matter of fact, the few cases that we do have over the years indicate just the opposite of what you absurdly, wildly speculated, that most courts dismiss the eligibility challenges using collateral issues and never speaking directly to what is or isn't a "natural born citizen". There is zero support for your absurd wild speculation. But that did not stop you. I won't even waste time on your patently absurd, wild speculation that the lawsuits would be "impassable" because, once again, you only provided your own personal opinion. There is zero case support for such a conclusion. Ah, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops.... I forgot you were off your rocker. Sorry to agitate you again. Revmqo (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dang, dude. You proved my point again. First you express wild, absurd speculation (which by definition has no reliable support or sources) and then vandalize my talk page (without providing any reliable sources for your personal opinions), and finally you just flat our engage in a personal attack like you did here because, wait for it, you don't have anything to support your crazy opinions, not facts, just your incorrect personal opinions. Way to prove me right again!!! Thank you.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, clearly you never read any of my posts. From the beginning you confused me with an IP editor and have refused to have a discussion, even when i have raised valid question. I have made my attempt to converse with someone who cannot play well with others. Revmqo (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I quoted your word for word and then I took apart your wild, absurd speculation word by word. Just come up with a reliable source to back up the wild speculation and then we will have something to talk about.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Were you planning to fix this? Are you in that big of a hurry to scream and yell rather than having an adult discussion?--75.111.78.220 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, under the Canadian nationality law Ted Cruz is a Canadian Citizen as he was born in Canada. Period. The only exception to this rule is the children of diplomatic staff, and since Cruz's parents were oil company employees, Cruz obtained Canadian Citizenship automatically at birth. This makes him a dual national of Canada and the United States. This is a notable fact. There is currently no evidence that Cruz has ever renounced his Canadian Citizenship. While there is also no evidence he has ever used a Canadian passport, he is a dual national. Why are you against having this fact noted? Dowew (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(Cross posted from my talk): What you're referring to is Jus soli which means Cruz automatically qualifies for Canadian citizenship since he was born there, just as is law in the United States. I'm unaware of any legal precedent for the Canadian (or US) government forcing its citizenship on the child of foreign nationals who have no desire to give their child Canadian citizenship. If you can demonstrate the Canadian government ever issued, and his parents accepted, Canadian citizenship to Cruz then I'll be the first in line to put it in. Since they didn't, because he was given US citizenship upon birth, asserting that Cruz is a Canadian based on your understanding of Canadian law as it applies to Cruz is a violation of our policy on synthesis. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not a matter of forcing citizenship on anyone. Since he was born in Canada, he was issued an Albertan Birth Certificate. Anyone born in Canada other than to diplomatic staff is a Canadian. End of statement. Its not about forcing citizenship, its about Canada recognizing this individual as being a Canadian. He is the holder of a Canadian issued provincial birth certificate and should he desire to apply for a Canadian Citizenship Certificate or Canadian Passport, run for parliament in Canada etc. While I do not know if he has ever exercised these rights, he is a Canadian. Its perfectly legitimate to say that he was born a dual citizen of Canada and the United States under the laws of those countries. Furthermore, given the birtherism and the interest around his birth due to his potential presidential run, this bit of information is certainly notable, see when Michele Bachman registered for Swiss Citizenship, while she (temporarily as it turned out) held Swiss Citizenship, her article introduced her as a "Swiss-American" Politician Dowew (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Being issued a birth certificate in a jurisdiction does not immediately induct anyone to citizenship in that jurisdiction. A birth certificate simply declares a time and place of a person's birth, no more. That Cruz was born in Canada and was given a Canadian birth certificate is not contested. Do you have a reliable source showing he accepted Canadian citizenship? Do you have a reliable source which shows he was ever issued documentation declaring him a citizen? Do you have a reliable source asserting that he is enrolled on any Canadian database or record that he is, or ever was, a holder of Canadian citizenship? If so please present them. If you don't we're back to a synthesis of original research in which you take your non-expert interpretation of reliable source A (that all people born in Canada other that diplomats' children are automatically citizens) with an uncontested and sourced assertion of B (that Cruz was born in Canada) and creating a new assertion from A and B that is not backed by an existing source C (that Cruz is a Canadian citizen). See where this is a problem? TomPointTwo (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's simple to follow, Agent. You offered a link to Volokh's blog archive. I noted that that archive now has the relevant link out to a dating/relationship blog. I tracked down the relevant link [3] from the Chicago Tribune (that you could have offered in the first place). I noted that that link does not support your claim at all. Volokh says that non-US natives with a US citizen parent or parents are citizens. He does not say that they are natural born citizens eligible for the US Presidency. Simple. I only brought up anyone else's eligibility because I was trying to untangle your link. Try not to re-tangle it. Your favoured source (Volokh) is one of three legal experts cited in the Texas Tribune article [4] that you presumably consider definitive. You seem to have missed the Houston Chronicle [5], Austin American-Statesman [6], and Los Angeles Times [7] articles linked to in the Tribune, as well as the other two legal experts cited therein, that express far more doubt about Cruz's eligibility than you will allow. It seems you missed the widely-read Politico piece [8] and the transcript from the Sean Hannity Show below as well.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Dang, dude." Well argued, counselor. Aren't you the one that insisted below that you have spent "almost three decades in a courtroom"? You're not fooling anyone, um, dude.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Come back when you have a reliable source to back up your wild, absurd speculation.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you two (?) like to have an adult discussion about editing or not editing this article?--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point to clear up, especially since so many republicans inferred that if Obama had been born in Kenya he would not have been qualified to be Prez; plus where is "natural born citizen" defined? Obviously, he got a lot of media today for his "attack dog"[9][10] criticism of Chuck Hagel, so someone could start on section on "U.S. Senate - 2013". CarolMooreDC 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves with anything that could be synthesis or original research. For what it's worth to interested editors there is actually a substantial article on just this subject: Natural-born-citizen clause. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is way too much speculation on this issue on this talk page and very little actual support presented from reliable sources. The Wikipedia article that you referred to is good, but it is still a Wikipedia and we cannot refer back to a Wikipedia article to support a position in an article in Wikipedia. That is clear rule of Wikipedia, but it does give a broad understanding. On the other hand, since we need to look at reliable sources and not mere editor speculation I would suggest that everyone who is wanted to edit the article on this topic should read a fairly straight-forward article from the Texas Tribune, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative publication, and the article speaks directly to Cruz's situation and is already cited in this particular Wikipedia article. The citation for the article is as follows: Ferguson, John Wayne. Texplainer: Could Canadian-Born Ted Cruz Be President?, Texas Tribune, August 13, 2012. Please review it. It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No questions about his eligibility? The title of Ferguson's article is that very question. From the article: "The sticking point, says Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, comes from what the definition of a 'natural born citizen' is, and whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace is addressed by the law." From the article: "[Peter Spiro, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University] said it’s possible that a person could challenge that the laws granting citizenship at birth do not define what it is to be a natural-born citizen. In fact, the phrase 'natural-born citizen' is only used once in the U.S. Code — in Article 2 of the Constitution." For all your talk about reliable sources, you don't seem to be accurately representing their content. -197.136.42.3 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you seem to the be one misrepresenting sources. The article raises questions, but then it concludes that Cruz is eligible to run for President. It is as simple as that. I have cited a reliable source that supports what I have stated. You have only your opinion. You are citing the article that I brought to the table and you are misrepresenting the material in the article. The article, the only detailed article directly on point, as far as I know, and it completely contradicts your POV. It is fine that you have a POV, but you must provide a reliable source to back it up. The reliable source that you are citing, the one I brought to the table, flat out concludes that Cruz is eligible to run for President. That is the conclusion and no amount of your picking and choosing quotes from earlier portions of the article can change that fact. Peter Spiro, the professor of constitutional law from Temple University, the professor that your quote out of context above, concludes quite clearly, "Ted Cruz didn’t naturalize. He was natural at birth." His clear conclusion does not square with your personal POV so you want to ignore that clear bright line rule that Professor Spiro has outlined. Please do not POV push. You are attempting above to focus on other quotes, which are only rhetorical questions, and are attempting to skip over the conclusion. You need to go find a reliable source that supports your POV pushing. My guess is that if there was any validity to these wild hair proposition then Cruz's political opponents would have pulled it out by now. But, so far, nothing, a just a few Wikipedian editors hoping that there was more there.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This hypothetical situation (Cruz running for POTUS) is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to suggest. While you may have some articles that suggest he may be eligible, there are plenty of Constitutional scholars representing decades of consistent opinion that "natural born" means born within the United States, not Jus Sanguinus, but Jus Solis. In any event, there would clearly be grounds to file lawsuits which would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and this would likely be an impassable hurdle for a candidate. Revmqo (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, as I have stated over and over again, this page is full of mere speculation. Revmqo, in your comments above, you state that there are "plenty of Constitutional scholars representing decades of consistent opinion that "natural born" means born within the United States" but you don't name any. Also, you did not name anyone that has stated that Cruz's particular situation makes him ineligible. It is all just your personal opinion. Thanks for the unsupported wild speculation though.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So sorry. Since you know how to edit Wiki, I made the assumption that you would also know how to perform a Google search. My bad. Here's a place for you to start your research. As you can see, the question of "Natural Born Citizen" isn't as simple as you suggest. And as far as I am concerned, Georgetown Law doesn't represent POV or OR, it represents leading scholarship. Revmqo (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The quotes provided (and the nature of the Texplainer article itself) do not support what you have stated, i.e. "It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility." That is the sum of my POV and the only opinion I've expressed. In any case, I may push any POV I want on an article's Talk page, so long as I maintain WP:NPOV while editing. The Texplainer article does not "flat out conclude" that Cruz is eligible. It closes with, "Bottom line: Despite being born in Canada, Cruz can be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen because his mother was also a U.S. citizen who lived in the United States long enough for him to qualify, according to constitutional experts." Do you know what "can be considered" means? Spiro's conclusion squares perfectly with my personal POV, but you wouldn't know that because I had not expressed my personal POV on the matter of Cruz's eligibility. Your statements re the Texplainer article: "It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility." and "You are attempting above to focus on other quotes, which are only rhetorical questions." Which is it--no questions or rhetorical questions? -196.201.225.142 (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks anon editor 196.201.225.142. You have made my point. Instead of providing another reliable source to support your POV pushing you just re-state what you have previously stated. You are still wrong. Based upon your strong opinion, if you have anything to support your opinion then you would have edited the main article by now, but you don't so you haven't.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is rather odd to me that you accuse others of expressing POV when you so clearly do the same thing. I point this out not to sling mud, but to encourage you to watch what you accuse others of doing. You are entitled to your argument, but to suggest that this issue is clear-cut is simply wrong. If you think that the question wouldn't be litigated for years, then you are naive. Cruz may be eligible, but only the SCOTUS could conclusively determine this. In the interim, it appears to me, and to scholars that he MAY not be. Revmqo (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's go over this again. I am not naive. After almost three decades in a courtroom I know the law. There is no support for your personal opinion. I am going to repeat, again, that you cannot put your own personal opinion in the article. You need to provide support for your opinion by providing a reliable source. After going back and forth over and over again, you have not provided a reliable source for any of your wild speculation. Wild speculation, such as you have outlined on this talk page, cannot be placed in a BLP. Items placed in the article must be supported by a reliable source. I have provided a reliable source for what I have stated. You have not. I have asked you repeatedly to provide a reliable source and all I keep getting from you is: (1) misrepresentations of the Texplainer article, which I provided and which flat out supports my position AND (2) you have started to vandalize my talk page. I have asked you three times to stop vandalizing my talk page. Usually, the rule is quite simple, when an editor resorts to vandalizing the talk page of the editor with whom the first editor disagrees then the first editor does not any support for his/her position. In this situation it is quite clear that you don't have support for your wild speculation because you have not produced a reliable source after the several times that I have asked you to show me one. It is wild speculation because: (1) Cruz has not stated he is running for the Presidency, (2) there is no one on this planet, as of yet, who is suing him for lack of standing to run for the Presidency, and (3) all articles produced by law professors, so far, clearly state without a doubt that Cruz would be eligible. Cruz has only been in the U.S. Senate for about two months and he has not made one comment about running for the Presidency, but yet you are wildly stating--without the support of any reliable source--that there will be a court case and that Supreme Court justices are going to have to decide this matter. That is wild, unsupported, speculation and it cannot be placed in the article. It is as simple as that.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you take time to go back and read my comments? I provided you with a source in my response once you asked me to. I am not user:196.201.225.142 who you seem to have been in an argument with. I have never cited an article from "Texplainer" only from the Georgetown Law School. I am allowed to enter into conversations on this page and I should be given fair treatment and room to do so. I have not entered into a discussion of POV or changed the actual article to insert any. I have only raised the question that what you are arguing, and 196.201.225.142 too isn't clear-cut. My point is that there is no consensus. I fairly placed a warning on your page and you have attempted to hide it to hide your treatment of me. I am not worried about the history of my posts since anyone who reads the history will see your aggressiveness and bullying of other editors. Please take a deep breath and reenter the conversation without attacks. Revmqo (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked you. Please do not make things up. I have boldly told you over and over again that wild speculation is not appropriate for the article. Cruz has not even stated that he is going to run for the Presidency. Your comments about my "aggressiveness and bullying" is just a way to attempt to dominate and control the conversation on this talk page. I have read through your discussions on your talk page and it looks like you have the reputation for aggressive and bullying behavior. Those who live in glass houses. . . I will state again, please provide a reliable source for the wild speculation that you have outlined on this page. The questions about Obama's standing NEVER made it to the Supreme Court because there is really no question there or here. You have sent me to the Georgetown article that focuses on McCain, not Cruz. If that minority position was controlling then there would have been a successful legal challenge to McCain standing, but those claims went nowhere either, just like the crazy Obama legal claims. My reliable source talks about Cruz's specific situation and yours does not. And history, i.e., the 2011 and 2012 legal challenges to McCain's standing, has proven your reliable source to be incorrect.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Again, go read my initial comment and your response.... then you will see where you took this down a prickly path.... Revmqo (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no "prickly path." That is just untrue. You are upset because I called you out about providing a reliable source and you did not like that. I have not personally attacked you. I just called you on a basic Wikipedia rule and then you got upset. I don't see this "prickly path." That is a figment of your imagination. I can't control how you respond to facts. Fact is that your engaged in wild speculation and I called you out on it. I asked you to provide a reliable source back up your wild speculation. And of course since it is mere wild speculation you have not provided a reliable source. This seems to bother you, but I will continue to demand that a reliable sources be provided before wild, crazy, speculative comments are placed in the article. That is all. You can vandalize my talk page all you want. You can go to incident page and ask for admins all you want, but the requirement, that I will focus on, is clear, there will need to be a reliable source to back up edits to the article. There is no support for the claim that Cruz can't run for President. There is no reliable source that states that Cruz is not eligible for the Presidency. That's a fact. You have not provided anything to support your wild speculation.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wild speculation that there is no consensus?? Wild...really wild!! 198.228.228.43 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

@ExclusiveAgent you are full of BS! @Revmqo is exactly right. You seem to be lost in the discussion. How about actually following the thread? @Revmqo only raised a question and you have done nothing but bully him and other editors. Time for you to learn how to play well with others!! 198.228.228.44 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Deep breath everyone. If you want to put something in the article make sure you have a reliable source. Make sure it's not a synthesis of various reliable sources. And please, keep in mind that the subject matter you are adding must be pertinent to the topic at hand not not idle speculation about a potential future event which may unbalance a biographical article. Also, you're just super duper sure what you want put in can and should be put in then go ahead and do it. Just don't be super duper surprised if you're then forced to defend the specific merits of that addition. The bold, reverse, discuss format usually beats yelling at each other on the talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll leave this here: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz: Constitutionally Qualified to be President? | The New American.--118.99.88.101 (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is presented as a reliable source? I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that an organization aligned with the John Birch Society is reliable and free from POV. Just saying.... Revmqo (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable and NPOV are not the same thing and so are not always mutually dependent. Much of it hinges on whether you want to use it as a primary or secondary source. If you want to use it to demonstrate that The New American believes "X" then fine, if you want to use it to demonstrate the veracity of an assertion made by the New American then you have to use a more rigorous criteria. Of course we don't know what the anon means because he dressed his comment up in pretentious snark. Maybe he'll let us know. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a Wikipedia search tool that checks the extent to which an external link is used? I'd guess that The New American is used as a source in some way in many other articles. It's a questionable source ("extremist") for Biographies of living persons articles, but it's certainly not out of bounds.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretentious snark? On my Wikipedia? I think I'll leave this here:

From The Sean Hannity Show, Mar. 6, 2013

Hannity: "Would you ever be eligible to run for president?"

Cruz: "[Laughs] Well . . ."

H: "C-can we end this for once and for all?"

C: "I-I'l leave that question t-to others to decide. I can tell you I've been in the Senate nine weeks, and my focus is one-hundred percent on the fight we have right here."

H: "No, meaning on the issue of natural born citizenship."

C: "Um-but-I-I will leave that to others to decide. M-M-My mother was a US citizen when I was born, but my focus i-i-is not on any such questions. I am one hundred percent focused--"

H: "Okay"

C: "--On the enormous--"

H: "Because you were born in Canada, but you're mother was a US citizen--"

C: "--Economic and fiscal--Correct. So I was a citizen the instant I was born by birth--by virtue of my mother [indistinct]

H: "Well, you're a natural born citizen, so you are eligible. Can I say it for you?

C: "I-I-I will leave that to others to decide."

H: "Alright, uh, amazing. Uh Thank--You're laughing. Why are you laughing?

C: [Laughs].

H: "Alright, I'm not trying to bother you. I-I just wanted to get this cleared up once and for all, and you're making it harder. Now the blogs are gonna go nuts."

C: "[Laughs] Well I-I-I appreciate it."

H: "I'm just looking into your future. I have the Hannity crystal ball, and I can see you running one day, but Senator God bless you. Thanks for being with us."

27.50.19.101 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Tired memes are tired. TomPointTwo (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

X Y is X. Wonderful self-referential demonstration, Tom. I am left wondering how the above is a "tired meme". I've verified it as an accurate transcript from a nationally broadcast interview (which is not from, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal source) with this article's subject addressing a question posed on this talk page. [11] (MP3, registration required).--75.111.78.220 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's one farcical internet trope answering another, which you missed. Go be indignantly confused somewhere else.TomPointTwo (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out of semi-retirement for that. We used to call that "NO U", right--to deflect from any substantive argument. Anything else? [edited]--75.111.78.220 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase "there have been questions about whether" a bit sloppy for BLP? As written it looks like Wikipedia is stating the question. Shouldn't we either identify the question makers or withdraw the question? Hcobb (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added reference to two early commentators that questioned Cruz's eligibility to be Prez and added links to their articles. I removed the phrase "there have been questions about whether" because it was rather sloppy. I hope my edit helps.--Bing Norton 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is even sloppier this way since it makes the sentence too long and unwieldy. There have been more than just those two papers talking about this, so it doesn't make sense to single them out just because they maybe talked about it first. Maybe saying something like "there has been discussion in the media about..." would be better. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to further confuse things, Cruz's kids are Canadian citizens by birth as well... NitPicker769 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not confuse things at all. Whether Cruz's children are Canadian or American does not matter because the article is not about them, but about Cruz only. Also, generally Wikipedia has rules about leaving out information about minority children as much as possible. There is no reason to discuss the nationality of his children from a notability point of view and there are no reliable sources that even speak on it. So there is no reasons to even mention this questionable suggestion/speculation.--Bing Norton 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/could-ted-cruz-be-the-first-canadian-american-president/ Ted Cruz: ‘I Will Renounce Any Canadian Citizenship’

The first President of the North American Union has spoken, so we should update. Hcobb (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

He's not Canadian. Whether he can claim to be if he wants to is a different question. This is the same tired argument used whether Obama is a British subject or Kenyan citizen through jus sanguinis. He has chosen to be American only and is not beholden to their laws and it is his right to do so. Whether he can make a claim for citizenship in those countries is laregely irrelevant. He hasn't and it's not really debateable. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The last poster, and whoever removed Canadian from the citizenship box, are dead wrong. Cruz was born in Canada and is a Canadian even if he does not believe he is or says he is not a Canadian. Just like people born in the USA are Americans at birth. (Diplomats excepted) There is a procedure to follow to request the Canadian Government accept a renounciation of citizenship, but that takes months. In addition, it seems Cruz is also a Cuban citizen via his father. 24.114.36.41 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And by similar laws, Obama is a citizen of both Kenya and Great Britain. Yet he identifies as an American has proof to claim that he is American, regardless of the laws of the countries that would grant him citizenship if he asked. He didn't renounce those citizenship's because it was unnecessary. The same is true for Cruz. If you have a source that says he tried to secure rights as a canadian citizen, the dual-citizebship might be an issue. Barring that, he is just as American as Obama. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The people who are stating that Cruz is not a Canadian citizen are extremely uninformed! Just as in the United States, ANY person born in Canada is a Canadian citizen, with the sole exception of the children of foreign diplomats. Cruz' parents were not diplomats. Cruz also inherited U.S. citizenship through his mother, and possibly Cuban citizenship through his father. Since Cruz has not renounced his Canadian citizenship (there is a formal process taking months...you don't just say you don't want Canadian citizenship and have it disappear), he is still Canadian. As to Obama, he was also born with dual citizenship: U.S. by being born in Hawaii, and citizenship in the U.K. & Colonies (later Kenyan, when Kenya became independent)through his father, but that citizenship EXPIRED when Obama didn't renounce his U.S. citizenship...a requirement of the Kenyan citizenship act. Unlike Cruz, he didn't have to do anything to divest himself of his other citizenship. The Obama-haters (birthers) who claim that Obama was born in Kenya conveniently ignore the fact that even if that were true, he would still be a U.S. citizen through his mother. Want to tell if Cruz is Canadian? It's simple. Go to this Canadian government website, enter Cruz' year of birth (1970) and other info and get the answer: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_04.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are exactly wrong. He has never excercised that privilege and as a minor his mother filed immediate paperwork with the U.S. Consulate. The Canadian governenment does not say he is a citizen and in 1970, when he was born, Canada did not recognize dual citizenship. Just like Obama could claim both Kenyan and British citizenship, he has not done so. Cruz has not complied with Canadian law, is not beholden to canadian law and is a U.S. citizen by birth. It is a specious claim to say he is Canadian as the law was changed after he was born. Cruz does not consider himself a Canadian citizen and he is a U.S. citizen by birth. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Canadian government website for determining citizenship: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/tool_04.asp When answering the questions, remember that RENOUNCED means going to a Canadian government office, filling out a 4-page form, paying $100, waiting around 8 months, and receiving an acknowledgement of renunciation from the Canadian government. If Cruz didn't do those things, he has not renounced.

Not. If Kenya passed a "Lost Kenyans" law as Canada did, no one would think that Obama had to renounce it. He doesn't because he never tried to be Kenyan. The same is true about Cruz. He has never asserted he is Canadian nor has he tried to secure the rights of canadians. A country can pass whateber laws they want but pretending they can influence a presidential race is ludicrous. If Iran passed a law granting Hillary Clinton a citizenship and demanded $10k fee for abdication she would rightly laugh at them. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, the person stating that Cruz is not a Canadian citizen is very uninformed. Cruz has been a Canadian citizen FROM BIRTH, because he was born in Canada. Isn't EVERYONE born in the USA an American citizen...even the children of illegal aliens? Well, it's the same in Canada. DHeyward claims dual citizenship wasn't allowed in Canada in 1970. Not true! What wasn't allowed (until 1977) was NATURALIZING into another citizenship. In other words, if Cruz had become a naturalized U.S. citizen he would have ceased to be a Canadian citizen. Being BORN into multiple citizenships was not forbidden. (I should know...I was born in the U.S. before 1970 to a Canadian father and I have dual citizenship.) This has nothing to do with the 2009 law returning Canadian citizenship to those who lost it (by naturalizing into another citizenship before 1977), because Cruz never lost his Canadian citizenship...unless you're claiming Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Also, DHeyward seems very confused in saying that Cruz had to "claim" Canadian citizenship or make use of it in some way in order to be Canadian. That is certainly not a requirement for having Canadian citizenship; it's based on birth in Canada, not his affection for Canada. Perhaps DHeyward would read the Canadian Citizenship Act (1946) and point out where it says a person born in Canada must "like" Canada, or claim benefits from Canada, in order to be a citizen. What I read in the Act is: "A person, born after the commencement of the Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen if he is born in Canada..." I can't find anything saying "unless his mother is an American and registers his birth in the USA", or "unless he moves to the USA and doesn't want to be Canadian". But...if you can find those sections, please let us know. DHeyward seems to think that stating the obvious fact that Cruz is a dual citizen means that I (and others) are stating that Cruz isn't eligible to run for president of the United States. I'm not taking that position at all. He was born a Canadian AND U.S. citizen, and that makes him eligible as far as I'm concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Canada has a citizenship paper. You have to apply for it and be determined to be a Canadian citizen. While there is no doubt the Cruz could do this, he hasn't. Canada will not, and has not, said he is a citizen. It is up to Cruz to claim it. He has not done so, nor has he paid heed to any Canadian laws. It is arguable that his Mother's action to register his birth at the consulate would make him a Lost Canadian, (or that his saying the pledge of allegiance in elementary school) that wasn't resolved until very recently. You are dancing on the head of a pin to make him a dual-citizen which he nor Canada has claimed he is. If he crosses the border from the U.S. to Canada he uses his U.S. passport. His birth certificate means diddly-squat until/unless he uses it to acquire a privilege (i.e. health care/voting/passport/citizenship doc/drivers license/etc). He has no documents from Canada that would allow him to claim any citizen benefits. His birth certificate would allow him to apply for documents that would establish his claim to citizenship, but again, he has not done so. Therefore he is NOT a citizen of Canada though he may be eligible to be one without having to go through the naturalization process. Just as Obama is NOT a British subject or Kenyan citizen, though he could claim both and could become one as he has been eligible since birth. Cruz may also be eligible to be a Cuban citizen as well. Without the steps to establish it though, he is not a citizen of those countries. Imagine Iran passing a law that Hillary Clinton is a citizen of Iran. Does that mean she is now Iranian simply because Iranian law makes her eligible? I don't think so. You are confusing the eligibility to be a citizen with actually being a citizen. He is certainly eligible to be a Canadian citizen. He is just as certainly NOT one until he takes the necessary establishment steps to claim it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, do you have documents to prove you are a Canadian citizen? What did you do to get those documents? My kids are eligible to be dual-citizens by birth, yet they are not because none of the establishment paperwork has been filed. We could file the paperwork, get a passport, etc, but until that happens, they are only American citizens and their claims to other citizenship would have to be approved before they could exercise the rights of the other countries. Ted Cruz can't walk into Canada and vote and get health care because he is not a citizen. He could become one if he wished and could bypass the naturalization process. He would need to establish his citizenship prior to doing anything Canadian. Same as you would have to do or have done. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. A person does not have to "claim" citizenship or "want" citizenship to be a citizen. You say Cruz has no Canadian documentation. He certainly does...it's called a Canadian birth certificate! As stated on the Canadian government website I directed you to earlier (the "Am I a Canadian Citizen" tool): "If you were born in Canada, a birth certificate issued by the province or territory where you were born is often enough to prove that you are a Canadian citizen." You say Cruz has no documentation that would allow him to claim benefits. Well, showing his Canadian birth certificate at the border would allow him to enter Canada without any time restriction...that's a benefit. (The U.S. requires a passport to enter Canada; Canada will accept a birth certificate and driver's license at the land border with the U.S.) He could work in Canada...that's a benefit. He can do anything in Canada that any other Canadian citizen can do. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a person born in Canada has to apply for a citizenship certificate to "claim" citizenship. That will be news to the millions of people born in Canada who do NOT have such a certificate. (I don't know if you know any Canadians born in Canada, but I know plenty. None have citizenship certificates, yet seem to be functioning quite well as Canadian citizens with just their birth certificates. How is this possible?) The only people who need to "prove" their right to Canadian citizenship, by acquiring a citizenship certificate, are people born outside of Canada, such as myself. There are countries in the world (U.K., France, Italy, etc.) where a birth certificate is not proof of citizenship. That is NOT the situation in the U.S. or Canada. Birth in either country makes one a citizen instantly and automatically, and the citizenship of the child's parents does not matter. This case is very simple: TED CRUZ WAS BORN IN CANADA! Therefore, he's a Canadian citizen. He doesn't have to apply for anything or prove anything. If, like myself, he was born in the U.S. of a Canadian parent, then, yes, he would have to make an affirmative claim of citizenship by applying for a citizenship certificate. That's not the case here. He was born IN CANADA! (If Cruz isn't a Canadian, despite being born in Canada, because he has an American mother, than how am I a U.S. citizen, having been born in the U.S. to a Canadian father? All I ever needed to show to be accepted as an American was my U.S. birth certificate.) You say Canada doesn't claim Cruz. Well, a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington seems to: "Unless their parents were foreign diplomats ... they are automatically citizens at birth" under the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, said Chris Plunkett, a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. "Anyone who has not formally renounced their citizenship remains a Canadian citizen," he said. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/ted-cruz-canadian-american/278825/) Cruz says he plans to renounce his Canadian citizenship. If he follows through on this promise, I guess that will end your contention that he is not currently a Canadian citizen. Interesting that he says he went by the opinion of his mother as to whether he had Canadian citizenship: "...when I was a kid my mother told me, if I ever wanted, I could affirmatively choose to claim Canadian citizenship because I was born there." Considering that he's a Harvard-educated lawyer, his lack of knowledge is a bit worrisome. Also, President Obama could NOT currently claim any citizenship other than U.S. There was a time when he had dual citizenship (British (CUKC), then Kenyan, in addition to U.S.), but he would have had to have chosen Kenyan citizenship over U.S. citizenship upon reaching adulthood (according to Kenyan citizenship law). He did not, and therefore that option is forever gone. There is nothing in Canadian or U.S. citizenship law that required that Cruz make such a choice, and thus his dual citizenship continues to the present day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So if Canada instituted a draft, he'd be subject to their laws? The fact is that he's never claimed to be a Canadian citizen, does not wish to be a Canadian citizen, doesn't believe he is a Canadia citizen, receives no benefits of a Canadian citizen and is clearly an American citizen (i.e. not "stateless"). Yet you seem to think he is beholden to this state of citizenship. It simply doesn't exist. He needs to renounce nothing. Canada has not made a statement that Cruz is a citizen, only that if he submitted his BC, they would recognize it. He has not done this. Cruz has not said he intended to renounce his Canadian citizenship, he has said he does not believe he is a citizen and would renounce it if he is claimed by Canada to be a citizen. That has not happened. Canada only broadly states that those born on Canadian soil can claim citizenship without having to be naturalized. Cruz has never done that. He can't be forced to be a dual-citizen and so far he has ignored Canada as his sovereign country. He is simply not a Canadian citizen. --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So if a Canadian woman in Manitoba goes to the nearest hospital, which happens to be in North Dakota, and has her baby, then immediately returns to Canada...and the child never has anything to do with the U.S. ever again, the child can ignore the IRS and never file U.S. taxes? After all, he doesn't want to be American, and it was only by accident that he was born in the U.S. "These 'accidental Americans' only recently learned the IRS expects them to file income tax returns each year: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/318061-nothing-against-the-united-states-until-now Why can the U.S. force Canadians to be dual-citizens, but Canada can't do the same? This demonstrates the fallacy of your argument, except in reverse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Alphazip (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2013

Yes, they can ignore the IRS. No SSN and no establishment of citizenship and no ties to the U.S. If/when your fictional example ever happens, let us know. But it won't. As you read in the blog, Canada says they won't force canadians that don't consider themselves U.S. citizens and have no ties to the U.S. to pay U.S. taxes because they are not U.S. Citizens. Until they make a claim to the U.S. (i.e. get a SSN number, passport, etc) Canada doesn't consider them U.S. citizens that are subject to U.S. tax laws. --DHeyward (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess DHeyward knows better than Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section ("He's a Canadian."); France Houle, a law professor at the University of Montreal ("If a child was born in the territory, he is Canadian, period."), and Allison Christians, a law professor at McGill University ("He’s a Canadian citizen." "They can feel as American as they want. But the question of citizenship is determined by the law of the territory in which you were physically born," she said. "It’s not up to the Cruz family to decide whether they’re citizens.") All quoted at: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-dual-citizenship-may-pose-problem-if-ted-cruz-seeks-presidency.ece DHeyward, can you please supply your qualifications regarding matters of citizenship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Alphazip (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2013

It's easy. Ted Cruz said he is not Canadian. He can't be forced to be canadian. He's an American and has said he is not a dual-citizen regardless of whether he can claim canadian citizenship or not. He hasn't claimed it. He hasn't and won't comply with Canadian law because he doesn't have to. --DHeyward (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not our job or position to decide how someone defines themselves. If President Obama wants to define himself as an American and not as a Kenyan then we need to honor that decision. It is a basic principal of self-identification. In all due respect, it is irrelevant what a lawyer in California (Orly Taitz) thinks about President Obama's nationality. The mere opinion of one attorney does not determine how we list someone's nationality.--Bing Norton 14:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) --Bing Norton 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My IRS example was not "fictional", and again reveals your lack of knowledge on this subject. Thousands of Canadians who happen to have a U.S-born parent or happened to be born in the U.S. are required by the IRS to file U.S. income tax returns (and other forms), despite having no further connection with the U.S. The fine for not filing one form alone, the FBAR, is $250,000 and five years imprisonment. I'll tell my Canadian friends who are in this predicament (and I know some personally) that DHeyward says they can just ignore the IRS. Info here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/americans-living-in-canada-face-looming-irs-tax-deadline/article12473920/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

AlphaZip: You are focusing upon a sitution that has nothing to do with Ted Cruz's situation. Ted Cruz lives in the U.S., not Canada, therefore, the situation that you are talking about just does not, in any way, apply to Ted Cruz's situation. This talk page is designed to discuss Curz's situation and you are bringing up an irrelevant point. Also, you are attempting to twist DHeyward's comments. He did not say the situation you are talking about is "fictional". He did call the opposite situation fictional and the opposite situation is fictional. Please explain why we should edit President Obama's article to indicate that Obama is a Kenyan.--Bing Norton 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs) SineBot is out of control.--Bing Norton 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So, he didn't say my example was fictional? Sure sounds like it. DHeyward: "If/when your fictional example ever happens, let us know. But it won't." You and DHeyward ignore what legal experts and scholars have to say, and claim it's Cruz' "self-identifaction" that matters. Using that theory, I guess a Mexican can show-up at the U.S. border, say he self-identifies as American, and they'll let him in. That's sure a lot better than having to swim the Rio Grande, but I'm afraid that's not how it works. Self-identification means zilch; it's CITIZENSHIP LAWS that matter. My examples are exactly on point. If the IRS taxes people who were born on the U.S. side of the Canada-U.S. border, people who self-identify as Canadian, why can't Canada claim as citizens people who are born on Canadian soil? It is pointless discussing this with someone who lives in a dreamworld where laws don't mean anything; reality is what you want it to be. Most likely, only when WorldNetDaily says Cruz is a Canadian will you believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's go over it again, since you are having a difficult time understanding. Obama is the son of Kenyan, which could make him a Kenyan. However, Obama has self-identified as an American. If you really believe your argument then I would encourage you to go over to Obama's article and attempt to edit that article and list Pres. Obama as a Kenyan. So far you have not done that even though the suggestion has been made to you several times.--Bing Norton 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)

You, sir, are ignorant of citizenship laws. As I stated previously, President Obama WAS a dual citizen of the United States (by birth in Hawaii AND descent from an American mother) AND, through his father, the United Kingdom & Colonies (later Kenya, when that country became independent from Britain), BUT under Kenyan citizenship law, he had to choose at adulthood if he wanted to remain a Kenyan citizen. In other words, Kenya does not allow an adult to hold two citizenships. I refer you to a Kenyan government website (http://www.immigration.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=142), which has this: "The child holds dual citizenship up to the age of 21 years and will have to renounce his claim to the other nationality before he turns 23 years old in order for him to remain a Kenyan citizen." Since President Obama did NOT renounce his U.S. citizenship by age 23, he is NOT a Kenyan citizen, and lost the right to BECOME a Kenyan citizen. Therefore, there is nothing for me to edit on President Obama's Wikipedia article. Canada and the U.S. do not have laws restricting the number of citizenships a person may hold, which explains why Ted Cruz holds both. It's very simple to understand, even for a person such as yourself who doesn't understand laws (as opposed to feelings): Ted Cruz was born in Canada! ANYONE (except the child of a foreign diplomat) born in Canada is automatically and instantly a Canadian citizen. It doesn't matter what he wants, what he thinks, whether his parents came from China or Antarctica, he's Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And the same rules applied to Canada until at least 1974. And they changed their law. If Kenya changed their law, would Obama have to renounce? Nope. Second, your tax information is completely wrong. "accidental americans" are not subject to U.S. income tax if they left within 10 years of birth, have citizenship in another country and are compelled to pay that countries taxes by law. If you have concerned canadian friends, they need better tax advice. They owe nothing and they don't need to file anything unless they want to live in the U.S. or get a U.S. passport (and even then, they would not owe taxes). There are ex-patriation taxes for people that actively change nationalities for tax reasons or were previously subject to U.S. taxes. Minors, though, have no tax obligation at all. They ex-patriate when they leave and if they have never worked in the U.S., obtained a passport, etc, they will never owe U.S. taxes. In fact, minors can live in the U.S. for 10 years and move and never pay U.S. taxes. Only if they decide to move back to the U.S. as a citizen of the U.S. for a term exceeding a certain limit or use their citizen for employment reasons, they would have to file a form that states they were ex-patriates and met the ex-patriate conditions (i.e. natural citizen of another country, didn't leave U.S. for tax reasons). Read the form and section 877, 877A of IRS code. You are making a silly argument. Cruz is not Canadian. He doesn't owe Canadian taxes. He can't be compelled to serve in Canadian armed forces, he can't vote in Canadian elections, he can't travel as a Canadian, etc, etc. He is eligible to apply for citizenship and have a ruling made on it, but he has not done so because he doesn't believe he is. He does have a ruling that he is a U.S. citizen, though and that's what he identifies as. --22:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, in 2011, Kenya removed the "declaration by 23" requirement and it's retroactive. All persons born from a Kenyan parent can now be citizens of Kenya. Feel free to add that to the Obama page. He's not a Kenyan citizen though, just like Cruz isn't Canadian despite the law those countries passed. --22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First you make clear that you're certainly not a lawyer...next you demonstate that you're definitely not an accountant! Perhaps you didn't read this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/americans-living-in-canada-face-looming-irs-tax-deadline/article12473920/ "Joe" was born in Pittsburgh in 1958 to Canadian parents and returned with them to Canada later that same year. He has never again lived or worked in the U.S.A. Yet, he is required to file a U.S. tax return (and various other forms) by the IRS, because he is an American citizen. ALL American citizens are required to file U.S. tax returns (if they earn more than the amount of their personal exemption), no matter what country they live in. There is no rule that American-born minors can live in the U.S. for 10 years, go to another country, and never have to pay U.S. taxes. What you quoted...877A...refers to a special EXPATRIATION TAX, which Congress passed as a punishment for high-income U.S. citizens (net worth of at least 2 million...THINK EDUARDO SAVERIN, one of the founders of Facebook) who renounce their U.S. citizenship. To explain the section referring to minors to you, it says that a U.S. citizen with a high net worth who LOSES HIS/HER U.S. CITIZENSHIP AS A MINOR, is, under certain conditions, excused from paying the expatriation tax. Expatriation tax and U.S. income tax are not the same thing. "Joe" in the example given by the Globe & Mail, simply moved with his parents as an infant from the U.S. to Canada. He did not renounce his U.S. citizenship (for which a fee, a lengthy wait, and a personal visit to a U.S. consulate is required), so the expatriation tax does not apply. "Joe" gets no free ride from the IRS because he only lived in the U.S. for a few months of his life. Back to Cruz...I don't know how anyone who can read English fails to understand these words from the Canadian Citizenship Act (1946): "A person, born after the commencement of the Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen if he is born in Canada..." Can we agree that Cruz is a "person"? Can we agree that Calgary is in "Canada"? I already know that we can't agree on the meaning of "citizen", which I regard as something defined in law, but you see more as a "state of mind". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The IRS is pretty clear that "Joe" born in Pittsburgh in 1958 to Canadian parents and returned with them to Canada later that same year doens't need to file a damn thing unless he wishes to live in the U.S. That is very clear, unambiguous and supported by precedent and law. Readit. Learn it. Love it --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Here's what the IRS says about U.S. citizens living abroad: "If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside." (http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/U.S.-Citizens-and-Resident-Aliens-Abroad) I would be most interested if you would enlighten me by providing some links to the IRS rules and court rulings that say otherwise. I notice tons of stories in Canadian papers about situations just like Joe's, and even about the children of U.S. citizens who have NEVER lived in the U.S. at all, having to pay U.S. taxes. Stories such as this: http://globalnews.ca/news/782020/why-are-so-many-american-expats-giving-up-citizenship-its-a-taxing-issue/ and http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/What+Americans+living+Canada+need+know+about+filing+taxes/8692506/story.html Here's what a CPA (http://www.cramagazine.com/issues/spring_summer08/article02.htm) has to say: "U.S. citizens must file tax returns on an annual basis irrespective of how long they have been out of the U.S. In fact, even in situations where individuals are U.S. citizens at birth due to their ancestry and have never lived in the U.S. they are still required to file tax returns on an annual basis." I guess you'd know better than a CPA about tax rules, right? And I guess all those reporters don't know anything either...probably a bunch of damn liberals!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this conversation has become a waste of time. You putting words in our mouths so that you can have a strawman to attack. I guess this discussion is finished until you provide some real support for your position.--Bing Norton 20:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)

Now it's come down to this: "Tea partier at Ted Cruz town hall: ‘Canada is not really foreign soil’" (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/23/tea-partier-at-ted-cruz-town-hall-canada-is-not-really-foreign-soil/) Talk about living in la la land! LOL LOL LOL LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 filibuster?

Whatever he's doing right now as of the time of this post, it's not a filibuster: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/mr-smith-he-ain-t WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a filibuster and should absolutely stay. If you can fine other 'reliable' non political cites, add them and update the article. But, please leave alone. Kennvido (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a filibuster, as it is not designed to delay any action on the bill. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That he started to give a speech doesn't merit inclusion until there's some reason to believe that this will have any lasting import. WP:RECENT WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what it is, he is still speaking and WP is NOT a newspaper. Wait until some historical perspective can be made. Arzel (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The recent edits have muddied the cloture motion. If Cruz had gotten enough votes he would have extended debate in the hopes of preventing the striping of the ACA language from the bill. May I edit to restore that language? Hcobb (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

supporter v endorsed by

The fact that Cruz supports the Tea Party should not have been removed from the lead, especially with the implication that being endorsed by the Tea Party (later in the lead ) is the same thing. If anything, the article should be clear that Cruz is a member of the Tea Party. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to the appropriate section in the lead. He cannot be a member of the "Tea Party" as it is not an official party. He might be a member of a Tea Party group and he is mentioned as a member of the Tea Party Caucus. Arzel (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"....might be"?? It would be more accurate to say "He is a leader of the Tea Party Caucus". ```Buster Seven Talk 16:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality of Content

First and foremost, Ted Cruz s the new Joe McCarthy. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a campaign ad. Worse, in fact, it's a list of accomplishments and endorsements with some flavor text about his family, and an extensive description of his father's life in Cuba under the section headed "Personal Life". I don't really know what to do with this article, to be honest, but it seems as though this is an inappropriate use of a medium designed to minimize implicit bias. Perhaps my thought on this is wrong, but it seems as that at the VERY least the article needs some balancing. 98.249.0.113 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Texas Tribune has a short, well-done biography of Cruz. Perhaps a pointer to that profile if it can't be improved on here? http://www.texastribune.org/directory/ted-cruz/#ui-tabs-1 Edarrell (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The article describes the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case as "his victory." Puffery. The Wikipedia page discussing that litigation, which includes a lot of information about the players involved in the lawsuit does not mention Cruz's name. 173.79.119.235 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed all claims (that I saw) that cite Cruz's website and campaign FB page for proof. This isn't allowed on WP per WP:Sources. Revmqo (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is very laudatory, but that's because there is a lot to praise about Mr. Cruz. Apparently, some people don't like that Ted Cruz graduated Cum Laude from Princeton and Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. Is there some envy here? His accomplishments are not "campaign ad" fluff, they are statements of fact. And if they seem to make Ted Cruz a brilliant and capable man, it's because that is what he is, regardless of how much you hate Republicans.98.170.198.158 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many soft biases in this article but I especially took note of one sentence under Ted Cruz's service as Texas Solicitor General. There's an apparent amount of inspirational language in the whole article but here it felt ostentatious: 'Cruz authored a U.S. Supreme Court brief for all 50 states successfully defending the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, winning 9-0 in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.'

Reading the article down to there I believed Cruz essentially defended the Pledge; he did not. The wiki article on Elk Grove v. Newdow explains the outcome of the case: 'On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court held Michael Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, did not have standing to bring the suit on his daughter's behalf. The mother was previously given sole custody of the daughter. The Ninth Circuit's decision was thus reversed as a matter of procedural law, so it did not consider the constitutional question raised by the case.'

The wording in the Ted Cruz article (deliberate or not) gives any reasonable reader the impression Ted Cruz defended the right to maintain the Pledge in schools. It would be much more encyclopedic and in line with good ethics to stay simple: "Cruz authored a U.S. Supreme Court brief in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, defending the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools."

This gets the point across and encourages the reader to investigate the wiki entry of Elk Grove v. Newdow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumdog (talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)