Talk:Ted Cruz/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Nationality Act of 1940 is incorrect because it was repealed in 1952 and Ted Cruz was born in 1970

The article states

Because he was a U.S. citizen at birth (his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as required by the Nationality Act of 1940

which is attempting to say that Ted Cruz was a US citizen from birth because of the Nationality Act of 1940. However, the Nationality Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 1137) had no applicability at the time of Ted Cruz's birth because Ted Cruz was born in 1970 and the Nationality Act of 1940 was repealed in its entirety by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 163), which too effect on December 24, 1952.

Here is the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 403(a)(42) (on page 117-118 of the PDF) says:

Sec. 403. (a) The following Acts and all amendments thereto and parts of Acts and all amendments thereto are repealed:

[...]

(42) Act of October 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1137);

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual is an official authoritative source that confirms this. 7 FAM 1132.7 (on page 12 of this PDF) says:

7 FAM 1132.7 January 13, 1941

a. The Nationality Act of 1940 (NA) (54 Stat. 1137) went into effect on January 13, 1941. Section 201 NA addressed acquisition of citizenship by birth abroad. The pertinent text of Section 201 NA is shown in 7 FAM 1134.2.

b. The NA was repealed and superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The mention of "Nationality Act of 1940" should at the very least be removed as it is manifestly factually incorrect. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH and WP:OR. Source says 1940, so we do as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you anon editor 50.193.52.113 you are not a reliable source on the topic. Now, we have quotes from over four different sources that are reliable sources and they point to the 1940 Act. Also, even though your personal opinion is not relevant because you are not a reliable source I want to point out that your analysis is wrong. Yes, there was a 1952 Act, but the 1952 Act did not overturn ALL aspects of the 1940 Act and the specific section of the 1940 Act still applies today. It is 1940 Act that makes Obama a U.S. citizen even though his father was not a U.S. Citizen. Obama's mother was a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Kansas, making Obama a U.S. citizen. It is the 1940 Act that makes Cruz a U.S. citizen because his mother was born in Delaware, making her a U.S. citizen and Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen. Reliable source after reliable source points to the 1940 Act. We aren't going to change the article because an anon editor incorrect believes that 1952 Act overturned each and every piece of the 1940 Act because that is factually is not true. Congressional Acts rarely completely 100% overturn a previous Congressional Act. And it is not any different between the 1940 Act and the 1952 Act. The 1952 Act did overturn part of the 1940 Act, but not all of it. And more importantly the part that applies to Cruz and Obama was not overturned: the section that provides citizenship to any child born outside the U.S. as long as ONE parent is a U.S. citizen.ML (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no time or room for the birther arguments. They don't belong here. As Professors Neal Katyal and Paul Clement said: But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose. See On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”, MAR 11, 2015, 128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161.--ML (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not using myself as a source on this topic. I am not using my personal opinion. The Foreign Affairs Manual is the most authoritative source about US nationality law matters. It says the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952. The law also says the same thing. Some provisions in the 1952 Act may be similar to some provisions of the 1940 Act. That does not mean the 1940 Act was still applicable. It's the statement of the 1940 Act being applicable which is incorrect. "It is the 1940 Act that makes Cruz a U.S. citizen" is patently incorrect. No source for this article says that the 1940 Act is the specific act that applies to Ted Cruz. "incorrect believes that 1952 Act overturned each and every piece of the 1940 Act because that is factually is not true." is precisely contradicted by the sources I have provided which said the 1940 Act was repealed -- yes, each and every piece of the Act was repealed; its provisions may have been re-enacted in different Acts. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir: I am not doing WP:OR. I have provided a very authoritative source, the Foreign Affairs Manual, the most definitive source on US nationality law, which says the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952. None of the sources in the article say that the 1940 Act is the specific act that is applicable to Ted Cruz. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Still WP:TRUTH. Find an WP:RS that talks about those laws and Cruz. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First, there are no WP:RS that says the 1940 Act applies to Cruz or that it applies after 1952. The WP:RS I have already provided repeatedly above says the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952, and Cruz was undisputedly born in 1970, after the Act was repealed. So you have an unsupported statement that is contradicted by the evidence. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This source does: [1]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Where in the source does it say that the 1940 Act applies to Ted Cruz? or that it still existed after 1952? --50.193.52.113 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear anon (50.193.52.113) editor: You have the burden of providing a reliable source to support your edit. Please provide it. Thank you. Best,--ML (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This talk page section does not say anything about making an edit. This talk page section is about disputing an assertion written in the article as incorrect (the assertion of Nationality Act of 1940 as being applicable to Ted Cruz's citizenship). Reliable sources have already shown the assertion is incorrect, and no sources support the assertion as it is written in the article. The burden of proof for the assertion in the article has not been met, and furthermore contrary proof has been found, so this assertion should be removed. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Horse hockey. You have not provided a reliable source to support your own personal opinion. Really, unless you can provide a reliable source, just drop it, ok? Your opinion is not a reliable source, do you get it?--ML (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For about the 10th time, I have provided a reliable authoritative source (the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual) in the very first post that describes the dispute. Please actually read the post before making comments. It's the assertion in the article that is being disputed that does not have a reliable source. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read the whole post and you have NOT, in any way provided a reliable source that supports your personal opinion. This is getting boring. Provide a reliable source to support your personal opinion. The Ted Cruz article, as it is currently written, cites Eugene Volokh's explation that the 1940 Act was the first Act in U.S. history to outline the requirements of citizenship of children of U.S. citizens born aboard. He is quoted in the Texplainer article in the Texas Tribune. The article quotes a well respected law professor pointing directly to the 1940 Act and explaining how the 1940 Act was the first act to outline the requirement and how that 1940 Act is still in the law of the law today, though the whole citizenship laws have been amended by other Acts of Congress, including the 1952 Act. But Volokh NEVER states that the 1952 Act fully and completely throws out the 1940 Act, that is your idea that you made up out of whole cloth. We do not in Wikipedia make edits to articles based upon the ideas made up out of whole clothe by an editor who simply has an agenda that the particular wants to push. You are quoting the U.S. Code and then you provide your own personal commentary on it like you are a law professor or something. You might be a law professor, I serious doubt it, but even if you are your opinion is not a reliable source. If you are a law professor, which I will bet you aren't, then you need to take your crazy idea, write it down coherently, and get a reliable source to publish it and then come back and attempt to have it worked into the article. Good luck with that since your idea flies in the face of 99% of the experts in this field. And let me point out that your claim that you know more than the experts quoted in the article is getting or so boring. Don't come back unless you can name a reliable source who is NOT you. (Just stamping your feet and saying something over and over again does not make a false claim true: Just saying that you are a reliable source does not make you one.) Who is your reliable source? What is their name???? I have given you a name, Eugene Volokh, who do you got? Anyone? Anyone at all, that is not YOU.--ML (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The 1940 Act was the first Act to add the requirement for a US citizen parent to have been present in the US for a certain number of years to transmit citizenship to children born abroad -- this is true. That is not at issue here. The 1940 Act is still in effect today -- this is false, and Volokh and the Texplainer article never said that. Volokh and the Texplainer article also never said that the 1940 Act was in effect after 1952, or that it applied to Cruz. This is the unsupported assertion in the Wikipedia article that is being disputed here. The 1940 Act was not "amended" by the 1952 Act; you made that up. No source supports this. The reliable source I have provided (which again, for the millionth time, is not "me"; it is the Foreign Affairs Manual) says the 1940 Act was "repealed" by the 1952 Act. Nothing in the article disagrees with this. It is your confusion that is making you think so. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are providing your analysis, which is absolutely worthless. Who is your reliable source? Who is that person's name? You are providing your analysis of the Foreign Affairs Manual, like you have any idea what you are talking about. I have provided a reliable source that points to the 1940 Act and you have not provided the name of a reliable source. As Ted Knight said in CaddyShack, "Well?"--ML (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not providing "my analysis". There is no "analysis" here. It says directly "The NA was repealed and superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952." No analyzing there. The "who" is the U.S. State Department. I can find any number of reliable sources that say the Nationality Act of 1940 was repealed in 1952.

For example, the book "The Citizenship Flowchart" by Robert James McWhirter (first result here) says:

Although the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) entirely repealed the 1940 Nationality Act, [...]

No "analysis" needed here. Or how about the article Filipinos in the United States Navy prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Naval Personnel (must be unreliable, huh?):

The Nationality Act of 1940, however, was repealed on 27 June 1952, effective 24 December 1952 by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [...]

Or how about the article In Service to America: Naturalization of Undocumented Alien Veterans in the Seton Hall Law Review by Darlene C. Goring, a law professor, which says (on page 26 of the PDF):

In 1952, Congress repealed the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, [...]

Here's another one Deportation of Veterans: the Silent Battle for Naturalization, published in the Rutgers Law Review by Cathy Ho Hartsfield, a JAG officer, which says (on page 6 of the PDF):

During the Korean War, Congress repealed the 1940 Act and enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [...]

I can go on and on. But what's the point? No matter how many sources there are, you are going to say I don't have a reliable source, that it's just "my analysis". The fact is, it's you who is making a wrong and unsupported analysis of the Texplainer article because nowhere in that article does it say that the 1940 Act applied to Ted Cruz. There is no source to support that assertion. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 clearly says it repeals the Nationality Act of 1940. I do not think the sources say that the 1940 act is in force, merely that it outlined the conditions under which children of U.S. citizens born abroad became citizens and those principles are still in effect (even if now as part of the 1952 act.) I do not see why it is significant that the principles were explained in the 1940 act and whether they existed in previous acts or under common law - the article is not about nationality law - and would just say "under U.S. nationality law." TFD (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why because the anon editor is quoting PRIMARY sources and drawing conclusions from the PRIMARY sources. He needs a reliable source (that is a SECONDARY source) that comments upon the PRIMARY source to remove information that is in the article and it is information that is in the article supported by a reliable SECONDARY source. The anon editor and now you are commenting on the primary source and trying to remove information supported by a reliable source with information that is based upon merely your opinion and the anon editor's opinion. Besides why do you want to remove the information that is supported by a reliable source? Why? What is your reliable source? What is the anon editors reliable source? You have not provided one. The anon editor has not provided one. The law professor, quoted in the Texplainer article, points to the rules originally put together in the 1940 as the basis for Cruz's citizenship. There is a reliable source saying this. Now, you and the anon editor want to remove information supported by a reliable source with your personal opinion. You are not a reliable source. The anon editor is not a reliable source. Please provide a reliable source. What reliable source says "under U.S. nationality law"? What is your reliable source? Also, why do you feel the need to change the information? Why? You have not provided a reliable source to support your desire for change so why do you feel the need for the change?--ML (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited the sentence. I changed "required" to "outlined" to reflect the fact that the 1940 Act was the first codified version of the 10 years residency requirement of the one parent U.S. citizen family and the fact that the Foreign Affairs Manuel, quoted above by the anon editor, still quotes the 1940 Act extensively and specifically requires applicants to meet the requirements of the 1940 Act. See: 7 FAM 1134 NATIONALITY ACT (NA) OF 1940. The FA Manuel is absolutely consistent with what the law professor outlines in the Texplainer article (i.e., the 1940 Act was the first time Congress demanded a 10 years residency requirement). Having read the primary source that the anon editor provided. I'm going to stick with the reliable secondary source (as good Wikipedians we are required to do). There has not been given any reason to remove valid reliably sourced information from the article and replace that reliably source information with the wording made up by anon editor or wording made up by 4 Deuces. There has not been a reliable secondary source provided by either Anon or Four to justify removing stable, reliably sourced information that has been in the article for well over a year.--ML (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not OR. If a secondary source incorrectly reports a fact about a primary source, we should not repeat a statement we know to be wrong. For example if a source said that Cruz was born in "Calgary, Alberta's capital" (Calgary is the largest city but not the capital), it would be wrong to repeat that incorrect fact, even though we are unable to find a source that says both Cruz was born in Calgary AND Calgary is not the capital of Alberta.

The other issue is whether the sources say the 1940 act is still in force. If they do not say that then they are clearly not reliable sources for saying it is. Even if you can find one that does make the claim, an article by a journalist is not a very good source for interpretations of law or any other specialized field.

I agree with your changes though. I do not see though why you had a problem with my wording. Do you doubt that Cruz has citizenship "under U.S. nationality law?" I certainly hope this article does not attract the same sort of discussions that the Obama one did.

TFD (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I find it hilarious that anon editor brought to the table a primary source which fully supports the current wording in the article. The primary source that the anon editor pointed to justify the removal of wording of the law professor quotes the 1940 Act extensively and specifically states that on this one specific issue (i.e., 10 year residency requirement for a households with one U.S. citizen parent) the 1940 Act is still controlling and is the specific basis for the code section that covers it: 8 U.S.C. section 1401. NA 201 still exists today in 8 USC 1401. I also find it hilarious that neither of you are reliable sources yourself but you want to remove the information from the article that is supported by a reliable source (a law professor) because you both believe that you understand the primary sources better than the law professor that is quoted in the article. Amazing. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between the law professor comments and the FA Manual. Also, I don't doubt Cruz has citizenship. I don't doubt that Cruz is eligible for the Presidency. But my personal opinion is not relevant here just like your opinion or the anon editor's opinion is not relevant here. So you really did not even need to ask the question. You question was unnecessary and silly.--ML (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It would not be significant, except for the fact that the Wikipedia article specifically names the Nationality Act of 1940 as the justification for Ted Cruz being a citizen from birth. If it said "under U.S. nationality law" then that would be okay. Actually the requirements under the 1940 Act are not exactly the same as the requirements under the 1952 Act, and the Texplainer article only mentioned the 1952 requirements, not the 1940 requirements, so the Wikipedia article's association between those requirements and the 1940 Act is not supported by the source. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Its like you did not even read the Texplainer article. It specifically refers to the 1940 Act. You have just jumped the shark. The quote from the Texplainer article is this: The Nationality Act of 1940 outlined which children became “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” The law stated that a person is a U.S. citizen if he or she were born in United States; born outside the U.S. to parents who were both citizens; found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere; or if a person has been born to one American parent, provided that parent has spent a certain number of years in the United States.--ML (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

While editors are not reliable sources, an act repealing a previous act is the most reliable source that that act repealed the previous act. And the Texplainer article does not say the 1940 act is still in force. If one wants to discuss hilarity, it would appear hilarious that you are using a source that does not support what this article claims. TFD (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ted Cruz article does not state that the 1940 Act is still in force. So your comment leads to nothing.--ML (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Texplainer article says the Nationality Act of 1940 stated a person born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen only if the parent has "spent a certain number of years in the United States". It *does not* say "for more than 10 years" comes from the Nationality Act of 1940, as the Wikipedia article says. The Texplainer article does not mention what the detailed requirements were under the 1940 Act. Instead, "10 years" is only mentioned ("parent who was a U.S. citizen for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14") in the part about the requirement for "people born between 1952 and 1986", without specifying which Act it comes from. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It actually does. The article states that the 1940 Act outlined the "single-American parent requirement" and that requirement, as it applied to individuals born between 1952 and 1986, must be "a parent who was a U.S. citizen for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14". The "single-American parent requirement" was created by the 1940 Act and its implementation during the period from '52 to '86 required 10 years living in the U.S., just as this article states. In the Texplainer article all of this info (the law that applies) is attributed to a law professor named Eugene Volokh--who also writes a blog carried by Washington Post. This Ted Cruz article is not inconsistent with the Texplainer article or the FA Manual (which is a primary source and Wikipedia does not encourage their use, but as long as it is consistent with the secondary source, which it is). The article then asks how does this info (the 1940 Act single-American parent requirement) apply to Ted Cruz? The Texplainer writer then talks to "Peter Spiro, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University" who concludes, "He almost certainly was a citizen at birth. I think that he would be eligible for the presidency. . .Ted Cruz didn’t naturalize. He was natural at birth." So there you have it. The Texplainer article outlines the law that applies (the 1940 Act single-American parent requirement) and specifically applies that law to Ted Cruz's specific situation and the Texplainer article quotes two nationally known law professors, whose backgrounds you can review in the articles about their lives here on Wikipedia. This article on Cruz goes over the law that exists and then applies it specifically to Cruz.--ML (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. The Texplainer article does not say that and you are making your own incorrect interpretation of it. It says the 1940 Act first outlined the "single-American parent requirement", which is correct. And it also says the single-American parent requirement specific to 1952-1986 was "a parent who was a U.S. citizen for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14", which is also correct. It does NOT say the single-American parent requirement specific to the 1952-1986 period comes from the 1940 Act. That is completely unsupported by the Texplainer article and is something you made up. Everything Eugene Volokh said was correct and it is not what you said. We have already shown a huge amount of secondary sources that all say that the 1940 Act was repealed in 1952 and have no source to contradict it. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, you are just blindly talking and making false claims. The Texplainer article via Eugene Volokh said that the 1940 Act outlines the "single-American parent requirement". The Texplainer article via Peter Spiro clearly states that Cruz meets the "single-American parent requirement". I'm sorry that you don't have a reliable source to support your desire to remove valid information from that article but you are not a reliable source.--ML (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have explained it to you time and time again and you're just refusing to understand it through your thick head. The 1940 Act was the first Act to impose such a requirement, but it's not the last. The 1940 Act was repealed in 1952 and the requirement was re-enacted in different Acts (with different conditions from before 1952). Cruz meets the 1952-1986 version of the requirement, which doesn't come from the 1940 Act (which was already repealed). Everything the Texplainer article says is true and it is you who has been interpreting it in a way that the article does not say the whole time. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Great grand father? not notable and not needed

I removed the content about Cruz grand father and great grand father. Not notable and not needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing the same (getting an edit conflict warning). That much detail is deeply in the territory of undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The extra content on his father is not necessary, either. The article is about Cruz, not his father. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Immigration Stance

Why isn't his immigration position on the page anywhere?

2602:306:3B27:2670:8D38:7208:258F:B5F2 (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? Huh?--ML (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the added, "Huh?", I'm sensing your tone to be less than welcoming to this IP user. Please remember to not WP:BITE the newbies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"I'm sensing your tone. . ." Really? You have the ability to "sense tone" through the long lines of the Internet? No, of course you don't. Don't make assumptions because your ability to "sense tone" must be broken or lousy (or both), but I think it is figment of an active imagination. Winkelvi, why don't you put Cruz's immigration position in the document, huh?--ML (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

All we have here in Wikipedia is "tone" via words typed into a computer keyboard and viewed on a computer screen to evaluate and understand what editors are trying to convey, MaverickLittle. Obviously, tone is an issue in Wikipedia as we even have policy regarding it (see WP:TONE for more) in relation to articles. So, yes, tone is something very real here in the world of Wikipedia. We make judgments in editing based on it. While you may scoff at whether or not one is able to sense a tone coming from an editor, be aware that administrators do evaluate tone via those typed words and issue preventative blocks for policy violations in regard to WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND based, in various instances, on said tone. You might want to remember that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed your edits and I have reviewed the comments that other editors have said to you. And I have reviewed the edits you have done to my work and the "tone" of your edit summaries to me and toward other editors. And based upon all of that review I can say without hesitation that you are the last person on this planet to lecture anyone about any of those things. As I have told you before and I will repeat right here that you are an edit warrior and you are a bully. Please keep your lectures to yourself and attempt to follow the dictates of those lectures because you don't follow your own advice.--ML (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute re: Cruz's birthplace

Today I corrected this article's claim that Ted Cruz is "the junior United States Senator from Texas" to read that Cruz is "from Canada, representing Texas." I included a properly-formatted citation, including a hyperlink, to an article from The Dallas Morning News that cites Cruz's birthplace as Canada and that includes an image of Cruz's birth certificate.

One minute later, User:Johnpaul87 deleted this contribution, giving the reason as "fixing vandalism."

I posted a note to this user's Talk page thanking the user for trying to help Wikipedia, but explaining that the contribution was technically not vandalism. There I pointed the user to the Vandalism page, and told the user that's where you can learn Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and how to respond to vandalism effectively.

I will now re-post my earlier addition, but I'm stating this explanation here to avoid an edit war.

(Please note: None of the content I've added addresses whether or not Cruz is eligible for political office; it simply addresses where he was born.)

Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note Seanjsavage that Cruz's place of birth has been debated over and over again long before you came to the article. Please check the archives of this talk page. His birth in Calgary, Alberta, Canada is not news to the many, many long-time editors of this particular article. We have debated it forward and backward and sideways. We have reached a calm consensus that the three or four mentions of his place of birth is plenty. Your addition to the first sentence has been proposed and rejected many, many times. Please read the whole article and you will see that there is plenty of discussion of his place of birth. Thanks.--ML (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:MaverickLittle. I understand your points, and the last thing I want to do is to suggest that we don't have enough mentions of his place of birth – or to reopen the can of worms about whether or not Cruz's birthplace, vs. the amount of time spent in Texas, have bearing or should have bearing on his candidacy.

To clarify: I'm simply pointing out a clear factual error in the article: It reads that Cruz is "from Texas," and that is factually incorrect. As Cruz himself proclaims and as the citation shows, he is from Canada, not from Texas. He moved to Texas, he's not from there. Thank you Seanjsavage (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. He is a senator from Texas. He represents Texas because he is from there. If he were not "from Texas" he would not be eligible to be a senator from Texas. Originally, he is not from Texas, but that's no longer germane in relation to his career in the Senate. Watch CSPAN - you will hear Congresspersons and Senators referred to as "<so and so> the <senator/representative> from <name of state here>. Every instance of Cruz being referred to as "from Texas" in the article is in reference to being a senator from Texas. That is the correct terminology and should not be changed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Would employing "...of Texas" – or "...representing Texas" provide a fair compromise that would satisfy you? Either is more accurate and precise, and less likely to be mistaken for meaning he *originates from* Texas.

I haven't seen C-SPAN's stylebook but I think they usually introduce "Sen. [name] **of** (not from) [state]." Two of the three CSPAN vids I just Googled (below) use the "of" style; the third uses "[state] Sen. [name]."

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326552-1/conversation-senator-ted-cruz-rtx

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326735-1/conversation-senator-rand-paul-rky

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326814-1/conversation-senator-bernie-sanders-ivt

Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be a fair compromise, because it's inaccurate. Typically, I eschew any reference to "it's in this similar article, too", but in this case, because we are dealing with politicians/those who hold an office of distinction, I suggest you take a look at the articles for other senators. What do you see directly under their official senate portrait? United States Senator FROM <name of state>. So, that in mind, no, your suggestion is not up for compromise in this case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How is "...of Texas" or "...representing Texas" inaccurate? Seanjsavage (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is inaccurate as well as inconsistent. My CSPAN example was just one example of when "from Texas" is used. As I already stated, all of our U.S. Senator articles state, "from <name of state>. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with the project associated with the senator articles.

Further, there are reliable sources that support the same: US Senate bio page, CNN, Mother Jones, WPIX, KTLA, insidegov, Getty images, Newsweek, Politco, etc. There are more -- do I need to post them her or is that enough evidence? Hopefully, these examples in addition to what is already the standard for the U.S. Senate articles within Wikipedia will help you to see that "From" is the appropriate terminology, Seanjsavage. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Seanjsavage, It is not factually incorrect that Cruz "from Texas". You are making an incorrect assumption. Just because someone was not born in Texas, for example, does not mean that person is not "from Texas". He is "from Texas" just as much as Jeb Bush is from Texas or Buddy Holly is "from Texas". Bush and Holly were born in Texas, but they became famous in other places, Bush in Florida and Holly in Nashville and New York. The opposite is also true. George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush were born in Massachusetts and Connecticut respectively, but they are both icons of the Lone Star State. We have airports and buildings and highways named after our two sons of Texas, we don't give a flip if they were born here or they adopted our great state. They are as much as "from Texas" as Texas Legends who were born, raised, and died here such as Lyndon B. Johnson, Ann Richards, and Lloyd Bentsen. I hope that clears up that silliness. We don't discriminate about who is a Texan, if you adopt our state you are a Texan. Cruz might have moved here as a 4 years old and he grew up here, but he went off to college, worked in DC for a while but he moved back here and brought his Yankee wife and his children. He is a Texan and it is factually incorrect to say he is not "from Texas".--ML (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic discussion -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle: Please don't label the comments of other editors as "silly" ("I hope that clears up that silliness"). Such comments do not foster a collegial editing environment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Winkelvi: Don't label the comments of other editors as "unhelpful" when of course it was and say I did not offer a solution, when of course I did. ("You said it in your edit summary when creating this discussion section: "The repetition of various topics makes the article POV". Such a statement is not helpful. If you are going to make such declarations, please also include some solutions. That would be helpful.") Such comments do not foster a collegial editing environment. --ML (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Pointing out that an edit or comment is unhelpful in relation to smooth and collegial cooperative editing is one thing. Pointing such out so that editors may improve their editing practices and improve Wikipedia is the goal in such an instance. Telling someone their comments are "silliness" is a personal attack and is neither helpful nor productive and hinders cooperative editing. It also can create animosity. Which is also not helpful. Now that you know the difference between the two, please stop making comments about editors and instead make your comments about edits. You've been reminded and warned about this numerous times. If this behavior from you doesn't turn around immediately, I will be forced to take another approach. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC) No, you said that I did not provide a solution which was not true. You did not tell the truth. You've been reminded and warned about this numerous times. If this behavior doesn't turn around immediately, I will be forced to take another approach.--ML (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Feel free to do so. See how that works out for you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) And I must agree with your comment: feel free to do so. See how that works out for you.--ML (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed "from Texas", to "for Texas", with the hope that it addresses all concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To represent a state in Congress you have to live in that state, you literally have to be "from Texas". That is a law. Cruz lives in Houston therefore he is "from Texas". It does not matter where he was born. This is rule for Cruz, for Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator "from California" (born in Brooklyn, NY), for Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator "from Vermont" (born in Brooklyn, NY), for Tom Udall, U.S. Senator "from New Mexico" (born in Phoenix, AZ), for John McCain, U.S. Senator "from Arizona" (born in Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone), for President Barack Obama, formerly U.S. Senator "from Illinois" (born in Honolulu, Hawaii). So you see where some is born has no bearing on being the Senator "from" wherever. If you live there when you are elected then you are "from" there. It is as simple as that and it lines up with the constitution and federal law. There is no special rule for Cruz. The same rule applies to him that applied to all these other folks that have served in U.S. Senate.--ML (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't stand the guy, but the guy is from Texas. 70.215.70.113 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

OK User:MaverickLittle et al, you raise fair points. Though I still side with Mr. Lyle Lovett on this one: <YouTube video removed per WP copy vio policy>Seanjsavage (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Lyle is just expressing, in a polite way, the same thing that Ray Wylie Hubbard and other Texans think: <YouTube video removed per WP copy vio policy> Have a good day! --ML (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How is this not notable?

I've been adding the information I've obtained from Cruz's book, where in it he explains how he acquired his first name "Ted". Seeing as how this is still the name he uses to this day, wouldn't it be notable to include it? Informant16 23 August 2015

The manner in which it was written and included puts it in the trivia and undue weight categories. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shortened and put in in the early life section. I only put it in the education section because the piers he mentioned were from his schooling and he was the same age as he was in the preceding sentence, sort of my attempt to have some chronological order. Informant16 23 August 2015

Felito is not mentioned as his birthname, so the fact that it was changed from Felito to Ted is a little jarring. I still think it's trivial, but, regardless of that, can you please change "piers" to "peers"?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, "Felito" is a derivative from the junior nickname for "Rafael"'. Cruz's father is Rafael Sr., Cruz is Rafael Jr. - "Felito" is a shortening of "Rafaelito" ("little Rafael"). So, saying his real name is "Felito" isn't correct, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: You're so smart. I didn't know that. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Some days I am, Bbb23. ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

yep. I can confirm that "Felito" is a shortened version of "Rafaelito", which is the diminutive of Rafael. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cato Institute as a source

I object to this edit which inserts content source solely to the Koch-founded Cato Institute. I would assert that the source is not independent and that the inclusion of this material violates the DUEWEIGHT clause of our neutral POV policy. - MrX 18:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I object to MrX's reversion of this edit because the Cato Institute's trade policy position is in line with the near universal opinion among economists. The Cato Institute is nonpartisan, and recently had a lengthly legal battle with the Koch brothers over the organization's independence from the Koch brothers political activity. I would assert, that despite the Cato Institute's ideology, since their trade policy view is in line with the mainstream view among economists, it constitutes a reliable source and a significant viewpoint, and therefore, does not violate our neutral POV policy. - Jajhill (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Some sources...

Some of these sources are already included.. others no.

• The Bush years
• Cruz supported the Bush-Obama stimulus
• The CFR is a nest of snakes, also his wife
• Cruz and Roberts...
• Cruz on the SCOTUS
• Cruz praises J. Roberts
• Cruz was for Birthright citizenship... Now is against it

--5.170.124.49 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The lede should not be slanted to recent events. It should be a chronological presentation of this person's biography. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on President Obama

I am attempting to clean up some erroneous references used in this paragraph.

1) calling him "the world's most powerful communist" at the 2015 Values Voter Summit[104] This sentence fragment is not referenced in the "104" reference. Click on the reference number, follow the given link to the actual article and you'll see what I mean.

2) in harsh terms This is a pejorative comment from the editor and cannot be considered objective. As such, I deleted it.

3) his ideas I added these words to clarify that Cruz doesn't call the president profoundly dangerous but in fact called his ideas profoundly dangerous. This addition more accurately reflects Cruz's comments about the president and increase the accuracy of this encyclopedia.

4) [107] I removed this reference since it has nothing to do with the shooting death of Goforth. Again, click the reference, follow the link, and you'll see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutPutter (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What is Ted Cruz's Name and Birthdate?

Good grief. The first reference in the whole article about Cruz uses a secondary reference (a document filled in by Cruz, the subject of this encyclopedia listing) that cannot be considered definitive and is likely to have negative connotations toward Mr. Cruz. I have replaced the previous reference with one that actually has a photocopy of his birth certificate showing both his birth name and birth date. This simple, definitive reference is dated prior to the previous reference, has little more than his birth date and birth name and is less likely to be construed negatively by casual readers of this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutPutter (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Relationships with fellow Republicans

The following sentence has a reference that has apparently never been defined so I deleted the sentence pending proper sourcing.

When Boehner announced in September 2015 that he step down and resign from the House, Cruz "gloated" at the news and accused the speaker of making "a secret and insidious deal with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to avert another government shutdown when the current annual budget expires."[117]

[117] looks like this at the bottom of the Cruz article.

Cite error: The named reference 2015VVSummit was invoked but never defined (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutPutter (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If a cite ref is broken, fix it rather than deleting the content. If you don;t know how to do it, use {{cn}} - Cwobeel (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to do it and I don't know what "cn" does either. Could you perhaps fix the reference instead of restoring a broken reference? Or, direct me to information about how to find someone else's reference material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutPutter (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a bot that fixes lost references, but it takes some time. If you are in a rush, a 10 second search in google provides a source for that content, such as US News: [2]. (BTW, please sign your posts by using ~~~~) - Cwobeel (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The bot just fixed it - Cwobeel (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, still confused. The current version seems to have a reference number of [121] which takes me to an article that doesn't support the sentence about Boehner. My first question is, did the bot just happen to fix it after I posted my most recent remark or did some event occur making the bot fix it? The second question is, did you follow the link to check if it was fixed before you posted your comment (in case my newbieness is affecting my results somehow)? OutPutter (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right (about unsupported sentence). Source and content you are referring to were added in this and this diff. On the first diff you can see that same URL was used twice in different contexts. I assume first URL was meant to point to The Dallas Morning News Trail Blazers Blog as the headline is pulled from it. Since I don't know what kind of editorial policy this blog has and – just in case – I replaced this ref with BBC ref. Politrukki (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Edited the first sentence in this section by removing the allegation that Cruz uses harsh language about his fellow republicans. The reference [107] actually tracks back to an article that says Cruz shies away from harsh rhetoric. The reference was once again faulty in two regards because the editor had used a named reference that was faulty along with the link to an article saying the opposite of the sentence to which it was attached. OutPutter (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet regulation section seems to contradict itself

The internet regulation section of the article reads as follows:

Cruz opposes net neutrality arguing that the Internet economy has flourished in the United States simply because it has remained largely free from government regulation. He believes regulating the Internet will stifle online innovation and create monopolies. He has expressed support for stripping the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of its power under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and opposes reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

Based on what Cruz is claimed to "argue", it would seem that he is in favor of net neutrality. Am I missing something? 73.136.92.159 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You're not alone in seeing that. The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what net neutrality is by a number of politicians, Ted Cruz among them. Somehow they believe that the FCC mandating net neutrality is tantamount to them doing the exact opposite. It makes absolutely no sense, but his constituents loved it. As it is, the text is confusing because his position makes absolutely no sense and is contradictory. Ayzmo (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

More precisely, the definition of Net Neutrality used by Congress differs greatly from the common definition. The common definition being that the Internet is generally free from regulations and no user gets preferential treatment over other users. This is the current state of the Internet. The only reference that people like to point to a problem occurring is the Netflix and Comcast dispute. This dispute lasted up to 3 days total and resulted in higher performance for Netflix customers. The proposed legislation on Net Neutrality would impose new regulations on Internet Service Providers that would severely restrict their ability to respond to new uses of the Internet. Ted Cruz's rejection of Net Neutrality legislation actually reflects a much better understanding of the situation and the general public's desire than most of DC. Thegreatpeon (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Political positions & fact checking

This is a bio, but we have a political positions section, in which we report on the subjects' viewpoints, including comments that have been debunked or fact checked. Deleting material that describe this person's views, is what these sections are about - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit is undue and not appropriate for a BLP.CFredkin (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is not undue to present the viewpoint of a LP in his bio, and fact checking related to the viewpoint as reported in reliable sources. That is what that section is about. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can agree that it might be undue given that other points really don't mention specific comments. However, I don't see why more of Cruz's positions on more "controversial" topics don't point out when his view diverges from the mainstream or are factually incorrect. Those are commonly found on other BLPs. Ayzmo (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Change Ancestry Language

The ancestry section includes the language, "So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen."

"and in any case his mother is a citizen" seems very out-of-place here and takes away from the point of the paragraph, as if her being a citizen were an acceptable alternative to his being a citizen, when I am sure it is a good-faith effort to point to the role of parental citizenship in United States citizenship law.

I propose deleting the phrase "and in any case his mother is a citizen" and either incorporating it into the paragraph elsewhere on its own, in context, or else leaving the fact a few paragraphs down where it is shown by her birth in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakingAMulligan (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Most Violent Criminals are Democrats

It should be mentioned that Politifact rated his statement "mostly false" for several reasons. Jerrytheman9 (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Most of the detail about his ancestry comes from Cruz himself rather than secondary sources

There are numerous secondary sources for the claim about Cruz's father's birthplace (Cuba) as well as the claim about Cruz's own birthplace (Canada.) The rest of the data about his pedigree comes from what is at least ostensibly a primary source (although he doubtless had ghostwriters): i.e., Cruz's own memoirs. That includes the claim that his mother was born in Delaware. Some of Cruz's political opponents have started alleging that she was born in Canada. Timothy Horrigan (talk)

There are headlines in at last one British Nation Paper [The Guardian] that he is harvesting data from FaceBook, employing one firm (at least)to do so. The opinion is that the firm is unethically aiding him to shape his speeches and unethically broaden his voter base. Soon they will all be at it if they are not already.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

Born December 21 1654 208.83.75.245 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: He was not born in 1654. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is not an American amement 14,if by blood it must be father--J90ferrier (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015

Please change "Cruz has "outright denied" the scientific consensus on climate change[165][166] and has received more than US$1 million in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry since 2011." in section 6.4 Environment to "Cruz has rejected the current scientific consensus on climate change.", because the current phrasing and references may contain bias, portraying Cruz in a negative rather than neutral manner. 2601:547:600:58FA:BC67:4C33:E5A2:8939 (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: Both sources explicitly say that he "denies" climate change. And "outright denied" is a quote taken directly from one of them. We go with what the sources tell us. If you wish to change that please seek consensus. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Done. The source being quoted source is poor -- just a blogger on the Washington Post who (judging from the rest of the blog post) creatively interpreted Cruz's remarks about surface measurements in the last 17 years. Another source (same publisher, Washington Post) says Cruz "does seem to acknowledge the reality of at least some amount of climate change", so only quoting "outright denial" is an NPOV violation. I replaced it with a statement that actually says what Cruz said. Also the sentence about $1 million looked like WP:SYNTH -- Cruz may indeed be pandering to "big oil" for the sake of getting contributions, but the cited article doesn't specifically tie that to Cruz and Cruz's climate beliefs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

In the climate change section, the 17 years should be 1998-2015. Typo says 1998 - 2005, only 7 years.

70.88.117.65 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The source mentions a 17-year period, but doesn't say which 17-year period. It could be 1998–2015, but couldn't it also be 1997–2014, given that Cruz said it in March 2015 and might conceivably have been relying on data only as recent as 2014? /wiae /tlk 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the sentence to read: In March 2015, Cruz said that some people are "global warming alarmists" and that there had been no significant warming in 17 years. Wiae is right; the source does not actually specify the time period, so we shouldn't make unverifiable assumptions. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is a specific time-frame that is given for that claim since it relies on a particularly warm El Nino year of 1998 to create the illusion of no upward trend for 15 years ending in 2013. There is no other period like that since starting at 1997 or 1998 shows an upward trend. I'm assuming that, given his position, he was assuming the trend continued to 2015 (it did not) and made it 17 years. See: Global warming hiatus Ayzmo (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Citizenship

I added a brief section, because this topic had dominated the election news for days, and it belongs on the page. I am not insisting on the wording, source I added. I am supporting the need for discussion of the questions being raised about his citizenship. I mean, can we seriously leave this off the page at a moment when the Weekly Standard is covering Barack Obama making jokes about Cruz's citizenship status? It belongs on the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it's completely unnecessary.[3] It's simply a repeat of the relevant information that is already clearly stated and sourced in the same section: "In August 2013, after the Dallas Morning News pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship,[25] he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada on May 14, 2014." The fact that it was restated by Obama, or anyone else, doesn't matter. Also, an enyclopedia should not add content simply because a topic is in the news for several days or because some politician makes jokes about it. Rowssusan (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposing subhead

• Sorry, I missed that. This topic merits a subhead due to the massive amount of attention being paid to it by the press and in the campaign. Tucking it into family background is a violation of WP:BALANCE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is already covered in the "Presidential campaign" section, as well as in the the "Eligibility" section of Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016. I fully agree that a subsection devoted to the citizenship issue is warranted. None of it belongs in the Early life section. Therefore, I merged all the existing content about it into a new Citizenship subsection I created in the Presidential campaign section.[4] Rowssusan (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC) 19:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done, User:Rowssusan. I agree that it belongs in the campaign section, not in early life. It looks fine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Born in Canada

How can he run for President if he was born in Canada? To become U.S. President one has to be born in the USA. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We should probably put up a FAQ at the top on this. His mother was a naturalized citizen living abroad, which is technically good enough to make him a citizen by birth and therefore eligible. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

But his father is from Cuba and he's born in Canada. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

His parents were U.S. landed immigrants living in Canada when he was born, making him a U.S. citizen from birth. TFD (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, only his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. His father was a Canadian citizen and only became a US citizen in 2005. That doesn't mean anything in reality, he is a naturalized US citizen and eligible for the presidency, just wanted the fact to be correct. Ayzmo (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hrm, that confuses the issue. Naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible for the Presidency, only natural born citizens. It's not as clear cut as this discussion implies. You have to look at the language of the Nationality Act that was in effect at the time of birth as there are exceptions and special cases on the conveyance of natural born citizenship. synaptic-axon (talk) 01:32, 07 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's why I only said his mother in my reply above. His mother was born in the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How do we know that his mother is/was a US citizen? Has she published a birth certificate or a certificate of naturalization??? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, MrToad, he has published his mother's birth certificate from Delaware?ML (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Added citizenship category to infobox. His former Canadian citizenship is quite noteworthy as a presidential candidate and senator--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Political positions split?

Seems to be quite extensive and a significant portion of the article. Should we remove it and give it its own article? - Informant16 23:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ten Day Old Version Of This Article Comes Up From Wikipedia Home Page Search

When I search for "Ted Cruz" at the Wikipedia home page, a ten day old version of the article comes up. When I click the "article" tab, the current version comes up. When I close my browser, which clears the cache, and reopen the Wikipedia home page, and search, then the ten day old version comes up again. Is that normal? Can it be fixed? Mindbuilder (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Mother became a Canadian Citizen, she lost her American Citizenship by taking the oath

As a result of several constitutional decisions, §349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA §349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality.

However, two expatriating acts contained in INA §349 are relevant to the issue of dual nationality. They are:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon the citizen's own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; and 2. taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years.

She apparently took the step of registering to Vote in Canada when she was there.

And the opinion of TV legal commentators does not create case law that does not exist.

Further, he is also a CUBAN citizen by the fact his father was born in Cuba and that Can Not be renounced as there is no such process in the Cuban Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofithaki (talk • contribs)

She did not as you say, "apparently took the step of registering to Vote in Canada". That is a false. It is untrue. Wikipedia requires comments like this one to be supported by a reliable source. You don't have one because it is false.--ML (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

At the time, electors did not register to vote, they were placed on a list of electors by enumerators by who were paid for each name and were not always too picky about about whom they added. Furthermore, Cruz's mother had not lived in Canada the minimum 5 years to be naturalized. Also, Cruz would not have been born a Cuban citizen under Chapter II of their constitution unless his father, who was still a Cuban national, had "complied with the formalities stipulated by law."[5] TFD (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ML and TFD are right, and there is not a single source that Cruz' mother renounced her US citizenship. --Ushtriapopullore (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Atleast mention that Cruz's mother was on the Canadian voter rolls per NPOV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Presumably reporters looked into this and determined it was insignificant. Kingofithiki thought it was important because he thought Mrs. Cruz "apparently took the step of registering to Vote in Canada." But Canadians at the time did not register to vote. Probably the enumerators never spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Cruz. Incidentally Breitbart's statement "Canadian law restricts (and restricted) federal voting rights to Canadian citizens" is false. British subjects resident for 7 years were also allowed to vote. It could be that Mrs. Cruz as an Irish descendant was a British subject. In that case there would have been no violation of US nationality law. Furthermore, the electoral roll was published after Cruz was born and would have no retroactive effect. TFD (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"natural born citizen"

Hello edit warriors,

I'm quite sure the question of how this clause applies to Cruz will, if necessary, be settled in the courts, and/or Congress, not on this page. So can we all calm down a bit.

As for the article itself, what is relevant? I would suggest that a link to Natural born citizen, which we do have, is highly appropriate, and should probably be more prominent than it already is. In fact, I'll go ahead and put that in after writing this. And I like the brief paragraph on the lawsuit. I would suggest we avoid quoting professors X, attorne Y, gadfly Z, and so forth on the issue, at least in this article, as that is a deep, dark hole that will shed a lot of heat and very little light.

Ultimately, I believe this article would be best served by a brief description of the issue, a statement that there is at present no ironclad answer, a link to the other article, a mention of the lawsuit, and leave it at that. Thoughts? CometEncke (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Much of that detail could be moved to the article on the campaign, keeping only a short summary here. Jonathunder (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The section is getting too long and it is unnecessary to cite experts inline unless their opinions are presented. At present it is not very significant although it could be depending on how close he comes to winning. TFD (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to cut down the section but was unceremoniously (and blindly) reverted by the admin Jonathunder and the editor User:Cwobeel, working as a tag team. All of the esoteric legal discussion does not belong in this article. This is an article about Cruz, not the meaning and interpretation of "natural born citizen".--ML (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a bio of Cruz, and if you think this material is not relevant to his bio, you should not be editing this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not even a logical comment. I will continue to edit the article.--ML (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This info is clearly pertinent to Cruz's bio.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: You asked me why the long paragraph on the legal ins and outs on "natural born citizen" was deleted by me. But your question is very, very far off the point. I did not delete it. So you are wrong. I actually wrote most of the section over a year ago. The admin known as Jonathunder moved the information to the campaign article and he pointed out that fact right here in this discussion above. You need to read the comments above so you can ask the right questions and possibly get the right answers from the comments already made. I tend to agree with the admin, even though I wrote most the information, because the section has become overly long it has been invaded by known edit warriors. It looks like now the section has become a way to attack Cruz and not to focus on Cruz's life, but rather esoteric legal arguments. It is beginning to look like a BLP violation. I would also point out that you have not given any reason why the information belongs in the article other than making the conclusionary statement that the information is "pertinent". That is not a rationale but a conclusion without support. I would like to hear your rationale.--ML (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, obviously people are now looking to Wikipedia for a summary of the natural born citizen debate. Whether it's here in Cruz's bio — where it belongs, I think, until it gets too large and unwieldy — or develops into its own separate article makes no difference to me. But it should at least be acknowledged/summarized on the main bio page with clear linkage to the more detailed article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a further info template link to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016#Eligibility in that section. Jonathunder (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If readers want to know about the Natural-born-citizen clause, they can click on the internal link. TFD (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a brief summary here, and a larger section in the campaign article. It is more relevant there, and with the two links to other articles (Natural born citizen and the campaign article), this article lets users find that info if they want to, without becoming unduly cluttered. So I think the current version of this article is in a good place, in regards to the NBS question. CometEncke (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Miriam, Cruz deceased sister

Is her "brushes" with the law really something that needs to be in the article? I don't think it should be. See Al Gore III and Noelle Bush.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaverickLittle (talk • contribs)

I need to correct myself. The information is not relevant, but it is not a BLP issue. But does not belong and it falls way outside of Cruz's biography topic.--ML (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Totally unnecessary, – S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Natural Born Citizenship Section

This entry states:

"Since Cruz was born in Canada, commentators for the Austin American-Statesman[132] and the Los Angeles Times[133] speculated about Cruz's legal status as a natural-born citizen. Because he was a U.S. citizen at birth (his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as outlined by the Nationality Act of 1940), many commentators believe Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States.[5][25][134][135]"

The part that states he was a U.S. citizen at birth is an assertion that appears to be opinion. This is the controversy. The assertion about his mother living in the US for more than 10 years and the reference to the Nationality Act of 1940 come from the texastribune citation (http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/13/texplainer-could-canadian-born-ted-cruz-be-preside/) but that article also states there are many exceptions to the 1940 law, and in fact Ted Cruz was born in 1970, so he would fall under the Nationality Act of 1952, or possibly the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The language on Wikipedia asserts part of the argument from the Texas Tribune citation as fact but leaves out a lot of other salient points.

I do not dispute that many commentators do believe that Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States but the language here suggests that it is a fact based on the Nationality Act of 1940, which is cannot possibly be given his birth in 1970 and subsequent Nationality Acts after 1940. One of the citations for this language discusses the Canadian citizenship of Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz does not deny that he held Canadian citizenship, even if he later renounced it, but the fact that he possessed that citizenship raises questions about his natural born citizenship. How can a natural born United States citizen have Canadian citizenship as well and not raise questions about divided loyalties?

I assert that this article would be improved by omitting "Because he was a U.S. citizen at birth" as well as the parenthetical assertion "(his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as outlined by the Nationality Act of 1940)". This could be rephrased to something like: "Many commentators believe Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, opining that he was a U.S. natural born citizen at birth through his Mother and the Nationality Act in effect at that time.". This leads naturally into the next sentences that address individuals who contest that.

Synaptic-axon (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The view that Cruz is ineligible to run for the presidency is a small, minority view. See WP:Fringe Ayzmo (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the belief that he was not "U.S. citizen at birth" is clearly Fringe. I agree.--ML (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to realize the purpose of requirement for being a natural born American citizen: Singular patriotism. We don't know if Cruz has patriotic sympathies for Canada and/or Cuba. Flight Risk (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the POV the education session, seems to be self-promotion or campaign related?

Recognizing this article probably has a lot of edit wars and not wanting to start one, it does seem like it goes into way too much detail regarding his education, how is it notable that he went to two private high schools and learned about free-maker philosophers? This seems to be self-promotion or campaign related? WatchDogUS (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is too much information, although I do not think it is promotional. Probably it wqs copied from an official biography. But the following paragraph, for a start, could be removed:

Cruz's senior thesis at Princeton investigated the separation of powers; its title, Clipping the Wings of Angels, draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to US President James Madison: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and that the last two items in the Bill of Rights offer an explicit stop against an all-powerful state.

There is nothing particularly brilliant about saying that the federal government has no powers other than those provided to it under the constitution and the anecdote about his choice of title is trivial. And who cares about a BA thesis, unless the article explains how it was significant either to his views or that it was influential.

There is no need to mention the "Free Market Education Foundation" since his participation is not explained. For all we know he attended one meeting. Changing his name to Ted should be mentioned, but not the reasons. Probably he wanted a name that sounded conventional and we do not need his explanations. His acting experience is also trivial, unless there is anything in sources to elevate it to significance.

His schools and diplomas are significant, as are his degrees, being a valedictorian, graduating magna cum laude, and fellowship. Dershowitz's comments should be removed - it's a reasonable conclusion based on his academic success. The section names Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, James Madison and Alan Dershowitz, and implies that he is in the intellectual pantheon with them, which at least now he is not.

TFD (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace in lead

According to WP:BIRTHPLACE, "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates." So I have no problem giving birthplace in the body of the article. But I don't think it's appropriate in the lead, for a couple reasons. First, he would be just as notable if born elsewhere, e.g. in Houston. Second, to the extent that his birthplace is relevant to his eligibility, the lead does not hint about that notion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)