And Ann has all of the classic symptoms of Ted Derangement Syndrome.
The difference is Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship. Cruz’s mother was not too young to confer it. She overlooks this.
To me, it is enough of an issue to BE an issue in the general election. It IS something the democrats will use. Period.
The difference Ann is we KNOW where Ted Cruz was born. We have definitive records. No one questions it. With Obama we did not know where he was born we did not have definitive records and many people questioned it.........
Lack of food has scrambled poor Ann’s brain.
Ann Coulter: Ted Cruz is a Disaster, Says Romney Best Candidate for 2016
Last shred of respect for Ann gone.
She knows full well the answer to this:
“If Ted Cruz is a “natural-born citizen,” eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen.”
According to immigration law over-written in 1986, a mother had to reside in the United States for five years past her fourteenth birthday for her foreign-born child to be a U.S. citizen at birth. Obama’s mom was only 18. His citizen rested on being born in the U.S.
Contrarily, Ted Cruz’ Mom was plenty old enough. He was a citizen at birth no matter where his Mom resided at the time.
By the way, notice in that Act what “Natural-born” citizen means: someone who is a citizen at birth. As Canadian statutory law, it certainly doesn’t establish precedent for U.S. Constitutional law, but it certainly shows what the ordinary meaning of a phrase which has passed out of common usage was.
Then there is precedence. As she said... if Obama was eligible, Ted is eligible. I want the best constitutionalist in the race.
Canadian law has no effect on US law and therefore is irrelevant to the discussion.
Since when is a Canadian birth certificate valid for conferring US citizenship?
Maybe in the North American Union. (Are we there yet? Vote for Ted!) /s
But Ann! Those "birthers" were "nuts"! You yourself had nothing but disdain for them, that is until you yourself have become one.
Who's crazy now Ann?
There was a time when I realized that Trump would be the likely nominee that perhaps Trump would select Cruz for VP but now I can see that the position for Cruz would be The Supreme Court.
Coulter by the way is not an idiot. She is an attorney. If you have ever been a citizen of another country you cannot be a natural born citizen of this country. That is why Obama is ineligible, he was a citizen of Indonesia. He may have also been a citizen of Kenya and therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.
There is nobody that approaches the quality of Cruz in this election. Trump has certainly been on the right side of a lot of positions in this cycle but certainly not on the right side of others. In my opinion the most important consideration in this cycle is immigration, send them all home. At least on this Trump is not far from where I am. The difference is I would have a long waiting period for those who broke American law to be able to legally return. Coming here illegally is breaking American law.
Sounds like Ann is finally reading FR eligibility discussions.
Obuma is the WORST pResident of American’s history, even beats Jimmy Carter, a Muslim and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a gay person, and has ruined our Country from the inside out...a three year Senator from Chicago, who is nothing more than a ‘campaign speaker’...
But that didn't matter, people voted for him twice...so now here we are, OUR Country is in the worst shape it's been in for years, I think it's time for the Supreme Court to stand up and declare Obuma as a non-pResident and a fraud and impeach him with the help of the House and Senate, those that do not help, should be impeached from the States they represent and at least let Biden run the country for the remaining months, he couldn't do any worse!!!
Cruz is who I want as the next President.
That said, if we are to use a non-evolving Constitution as a basis, he is not a natural born citizen.
Quite the quandary.
Design Your Own Definition of “Natural Born” and Citizenship Requirements
[ ] birth anywhere on earth at any time
[ ] birth on U.S. soil in one of the 50 states
[ ] birth in a U.S. territory of _____, ______, _____, or _____
[ ] birth on a U.S. warship
[ ] birth on a U.S. sea vessel or air vessel or space vessel registered under U.S. flag
[ ] birth at a U.S. embassy or _____ in a foreign land
[ ] birth at a U.S. military facility in a foreign land
[ ] birth in U.S. zone of Panama Canal
[ ] birth in U.S. shared zone of Antartica
[ ] birth on foreign soil while a parent serving in U.S. military in that land
[ ] birth into U.S. slavery prior to 1865 (or whatever the correct emancipation year)
[ ] birth into U.S. Indian tribe prior to year 18__ (insert the correct year)
[ ] mother is a U.S. citizen
[ ] mother is a U.S. citizen, while also a citizen of one or more other nations
[ ] mother is a U.S. citizen, while also a citizen of another nation, where that nation asserts mother can have NO other citizenship claims
[ ] mother is a U.S. citizen, while another nation claims mother as a subject
[ ] mother is a U.S. citizen, while a citizen of no other nation, and with no other nation claiming subject
[ ] mother is not a U.S. citizen
[ ] mother is not a U.S. citizen, but has open, pending, citizenship application
[ ] mother is not a U.S. citizen, but has legally resided on U.S. soil for ____ days/years
[ ] mother is not a U.S. citizen, but has (illegally) resided on U.S. soil for ____ days/years
[ ] father is a U.S. citizen
[ ] father is a U.S. citizen, while...
[ ] father is a U.S. citizen, while...
[ ] father is a U.S. citizen, while...
[ ] father is a U.S. citizen, while...
[ ] father is not a U.S. citizen
[ ] father is not a U.S. citizen, but...
[ ] father is not a U.S. citizen, but...
[ ] father is not a U.S. citizen, but...
Did I miss anything?
Personal attacks are always a valid way of proving your point and settling a Constitutional question. In no way does it make you look like a complete nutter. More popcorn, please.
The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.You may notice that the words "shall be considered as" have been emphasized. Anybody who tells you that the 1790 Act is a definition is misleading you. Congress did so deliberately (misled you). In the ordinary use of the English language, the phrase "shall be considered as" is as assignment of pretend.
Social security regulation 20 CFR 416.1856 says, essentially, a person up to the age of 22 shall be considered as a child. That doesn't mean a person is in fact a child until they reach the age of 22, it means that the law will play make believe. This is called "legal fiction," and it is so common in statutory law, so as to be unremarkable.
If we look at only the 1790 Naturalization<,b> Act, and admit the fact (and it is a fact) that the phrase "shall be considered as" creates legal fiction, then what the founders said about the subject in the 1790 act was this:
the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States are not natural born citizens, but for purposes of law, we will pretend they are
The Act, on its face, disproves the contention that Cruz is an NBC. It doesn't help his case, it demolishes it!
-- And the counter argument, that both parents would need to be citizens ... --
The statute is ambiguous as to one or both parents, but it doesn't matter. When you grok what the 1790 Act says, actually in plain English, when you grok that is expressly excludes what is described (children born abroad) from the conclusion (NBC), then it doesn't matter if the child had one parent, two parents, three parents (donor sperm), four parents (donor sperm and donor egg), or even zero parents (test tube baby).
-- How did justices in the Bellei case argue away this act (which was cited in the Bellei case) --
The legal fiction created by this act was repealed in 1795. The justices didn't have to argue it away, and plus, Bellei is, say all 9 of the justices, unremarkaby, naturalized.
At this point, many people deploy "magic thinking" and relapse into believing that a person can be "natural" (which is better thought of as "under the constitution") and naturalized (which is better thought of as "NOT under the constitution, but under Act of Congress") at the same time. They want to believe, so badly, that a person born abroad of a citizen parent is an NBC, that they become, on this point, literally kooks.
It's not an issue in real life. Just these people want to preserve the dream that their child can grow up to be president. The kids are citizens, but they are not 100% American at birth. A person born in Canada of a Cuban father and US Mother is not 100% American at birth. It's not their fault. They may turn into the best advocate for America, but they were born mixed. We the people can abandon the constitution via stupidity. Hell, I think we have.
The fact is Ted Crus knew of his Canadian citizenship when he ran for the US Senate, then lied and claimed he didn’t know of it when he ran for President, and only in July 2014 did he formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz doesn’t sound so dedicated to the United States as he claims. Seems he was keeping the Canadian door open to run there if his attempt at politics failed here.