Posted on 01/07/2016 11:32:52 AM PST by The Looking Spoon
In Canada a natural born citizen is someone who is born in the country or someone born abroad and has one parent who is a citizen.
In the United States according to this Harvard Law Review article, a naturally born U.S citizen would fall under the very same requirements.
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.If Ted Cruz's citizenship concerns you then know at the worst, so to speak, he was a dual citizen (until he formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014) since he satisfied the natural-born criteria for both countries.
So it seems illogical to propagate the canard that if conservatives and "birthers" thought Obama wasn't a citizen then this should matter to them.
FWIW: Basically the only people who believed the birther claims against Obama were GOP primary voters, Cruz should not take this lightly — Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) January 6, 2016
While I poked fun at it with some photoshops I was never one to buy into this attack on Obama. If he was born in Hawaii then he was a citizen, even if his heart belongs to the La La Land liberals are actually citizens of (in spirit, of course, that land doesn't really exist no matter how hard Hollywood tries) he at least satisfied the letter of the clause.
On the surface, what Pfeiffer says might be true, but Cruz won't (or shouldn't) face backlash because he has been on this issue something Obama never has been...totally and completely transparent.
Cruz doesn't play coy about his birth history. We don't have in writing that he claims to be born in another country, unlike a bio put out by Obama's literary agent (for the sake of discussion, he was probably lying to seem exotic to not-so-racist liberals...we really need a sarcasm font). And nobody asks about Cruz's birth history because we already know the unequivocal answer.
The only reason stuff is being said now, by the likes of John McCain...
...because Cruz isn't a member of their liberal butt-sniffing pack.
The way conservatives have been attacked over the last few years by these RINOs I'm starting to think they have their horns on loan from Satan. If RINOs and GOPe hacks are coming after the most purely conservative Republican running in such an illogical and idiotic way then that would actually be the best thing going for Cruz. If they would take their heads out of liberal asses for more than a few seconds they might actually realize that.
Its too bad that the issue is unresolved. It can’t be wished away. We don’t resolve things with articles from liberal colleges — we actually resolve them with Notice and hearing before the courts and through an appeal process and then by SCOTUS.
Cruz has two options. 1. he can wait for the Democrats to take a judicial track that they control. ( hillary has absolute standing) or 2. he can move for a declaratory judgement and hope to fast track it. If he waits and is picked for vice president by Trump, Then he will be enjoined for two years from taking the oath. Once you take the oath, the issue is moot so he will be enjoined.
It is all well and good for us to express our opinions and desires but it doesn’t make a tinkers damn. Cruz should have seen this coming as inevitable and gone to the courts 9 months ago and it might be over but IT IS GOING TO THE COURTS if he ever gets any traction.
I see nothing more illogical in politics these days than people propagating the notion that the son of a foreign citizen could also simultaneously be a natural born citizen of the United States.
What on Earth do people think the purpose of the clause was? Filler?
Not entirely accurate. in the early years US citizen women could not bestow citizenship on children born abroad.
There have also been residency requirements for the US citizen to be able to bestow citizenship to their child at birth if born abroad.
It has been proven that Cruses mother had the appropriate residency requirement at the time of his birth to immediately bestow citizenship.
Now if we are to go by the one citizen parent argument think about this. A forty year old citizen of the US has lived here all his life. When he travels abroad he visits China and has sex with a woman in China and leaves and never sees the mother again. The baby grows up in China and raised as a loyal communist. How could this person have any allegiance to the United States? Yet some here believe this person to be a natural born citizen of the US and would be qualified for president.
do you think the founders would have agreed?
Had Cruz been born in 1933 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1934, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.
Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.
The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in it’s entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings. The framers were patriarchs who believed t5hat the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship of the father.
The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.
Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.
Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and it’s people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical usurper demagogue Obama.
My bad. The Cable Act was passed in 1922.
This stupid article has been written by someone who doesn’t know the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.Look up E. Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of Natural Born Citizen which the Constitutional Committee accepted on the advice of future Chief Justice John Jay.
Spreading stupid lies trying to make them accepted by people who do not know the facts is just another media practice leading this country downhill.
A Natural Born Citizen is one born of TWO Citizen parents, not just one. A citizen is by ONE parent being American.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was ratified in 1791 and has never been changed nor modified.
Sorry, you are the one being illogical. I am still waiting for a clear and reasoned explanation of the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. They are categorically different from each other. Explain the difference.
Oh but in trying too hard to be too cute to “throw logic on this” you posted an epic failure by your own standards: the logic of ensuring allegiance to the US.
Are you seriously saying that Cruz would have divided loyalties? And are you seriously saying that a Chi com (in your example) would ever win the office? Unless you are saying those things, your logic fails. And if your are saying those two things, you are delusional. Either way you lose .
No, they would not, and this was probably not a scenario they ever even envisioned. However, the act of running for president isn’t so simple that this hypothetical person would ever get that far.
By contrast Cruz moved to Texas at age 4, and I think everyone at Free Republic can agree that his allegiance to America is not up for discussion.
If your hypothetical person could run for president (providing Democrats thought they were even electable considering their running mate would need to be a translator) the issue of allegiance would be front and center and voters would (hopefully) know better.
Your point is an excellent one. I just can’t imagine that the founders would agree that Cruz would be in the exact same boat as your hypothetical person.
BTW, no one is “attacking” his citizenship. This phrasing is a sure fire giveaway that a liberal wrote this.
Many of us are questioning his eligibility under the provisions of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the US constitution, using sound constitutional, legal, and historical reasoning for doing so.
It has been proven that Cruses mother had the appropriate residency requirement at the time of his birth to immediately bestow citizenship.
........................................................
Not arguing about “Citizenship” IF indeed, Cruz’s mother had not relinquished her American citizenship for Canadian citizenship when her husband was a Canadian citizen and they were living in Canada. Assuming she remained American then Cruz IS an American Citizen, however he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, ratified in 1791. ONLY Natural born Citizens (BOTH parents American at the time of his birth) can be president.
IOW Trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.
The link to the Harvard Law Review in this post provides an explanation. You might disagree with it, but don’t pretend that I posted this half-cocked.
You mean as opposed to having a full blown Socialist who has lived in the U.S. his entire life running for President, as we have now?
Even Senator John McCain has doubts on Cruz's birth situation. He just told a Phoenix radio station that he isn't sure if Cruz's birth in Canada disqualifies him.
Cruz is also getting pressure from liberal U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat and U.S. Senate candidate who, like Cruz, studied law at Harvard. He told U.S. News that he will challenge Cruz's eligibility in Court if he should win the nomination.
In interviews this week, Trump has called it "very precarious" for the GOP to pick someone whose eligibility for president could take years to untangle in court. He urged Cruz to seek a declaratory judgment, perhaps from the U.S. Supreme Court. Once again Trump's practical take on the issues shows his great wisdom.
I know...what’s your point?
We’re not talking about “LOGIC” here. We are talking about the CONSTITUTION As It Was Written and ratified in 1791.
Either you support the Constitution or you don’t. Not a choice in the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.