If you count forged documents as "adequate".
Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Lucky for us you won’t get to vote nobama again, even in sitting it out.
Oh, well. Maybe Soetoro really is Frank Marshall Davis, Jr., which makes him a NBC.
Sad that we can't even verify 0bama's paternity.
5.56mm
No. Natural born Citizen is required. As it now stands, one American citizen parent at birth gives you NBC status, regardless of where born.
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
if you were born to two US citizens... but on foreign soil... you can be either US and/or a citizen of the other country.
if you were born on US soil, but one or both of your parents are foreign citizens... you can be either US and/or a citizen of the other country.
the ONLY way you can be a NATURAL BORN citizen is to be born of TWO US citizen parents on US soil.
amazing how many people try to confuse such a simplistic issue. then again, they’re doing it for political reasons... but they’re still wrong
“To determine if you were born a U.S. citizen, USCIS must look at the law that was in effect at the time of your birth.”
Congress does not have Constitutional authority to write legislation effecting the citizenship of a U.S. Citizen. The 14th Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution. The INA does not apply to U.S. Citizens, only foreign nationals who would like to become U.S. citizens.
If Ted Cruz were truly a U.S. Citizen at birth, then Congress would not have Constitutional authority to write and pass legislation to establish terms and conditions for him to be issued a Certificate of Citizenship. Only the Executive Branch has Constitutional authority to impact a U.S. Citizen with respect to citizenship status; i.e. issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Since USCIS is an agency of the Executive Branch, it does not have the authority to rely on legislation passed by Congress to determine citizenship status. It can only look to the U.S. Constitution for authority.
Children born in Canada of American parents are Canadian citizens by birthright. http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-29/sec3.html
For USCIS to establish jurisdiction and determine if it has the Constitutional authority to make a determination of a person, USCIS must first determine one or both of the parents lived in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. Otherwise, the U.S. Executive Branch would not authority to exercise jurisdiction over the Canadian born child.
Since the Canadian born child is a foreign national seeking U.S. Citizenship status, Congress does have authority to write and pass legislation setting terms and conditions, i.e. one U.S. Citizen parent must have been a resident of the U.S. for 5 years prior to their 19th birthday, etc ...
A child born aboard must be considered a foreign national seeking U.S. Citizenship before USCIS can follow Federal Law to determine citizenship status of the child.
Obama's mama was married to Obama, Sr. when Junior was born. By the laws of Hawaii, and I believe every other state, this means Senior is his legal father. Biological paternity is irrelevant.
Then by my understanding, he isn't "natural born". That was Chester A. Arthur's concern, apparently, that his father didn't become a citizen until after his birth, making him ineligible for the presidency. He seemed to have hidden the exact circumstances of his birth most of his life due to that very issue if I'm not wrong.
Way back when (McCain, Panama?) I read that in the old days if a child were born of English parents on French soil, he was a “natural born” subject of the King, and that our concept of “natural born” citizen comes from that part of English law. Also, this was what the founding fathers thought everyone understood.
Most of the quiet discussion I’ve seen since then seems to correspond to that. More heated discussions have been all over the map.
True, it's not, but the Constitution is.
Please show me the authority enumerated in the Constitution that gives the federal government the ability to define the term 'natural born citizen'.
Personally, I find the opinion of Ted Cruz (Harvard law) to be more persuasive. However, I recognize that under our Constitution, the voters and their electors have the sole power and duty to select our presidents and to approve or disapprove of a candidate's qualifications.
Ted Cruz - 2016
I would vote for Palin in a heartbeat.
Oh.
Got it. :D
Please show me the authority enumerated in the Constitution that gives the federal government the ability to define the term 'natural born citizen'.
I think you meant to type something else, and it's hard to tell what it is. We have three branches of federal government.
He’s a citizen at birth by law, which is not the same thing as a natural born citizen. His parents were not serving in the military or diplomatic service, and his father was not even a US citizen.
He’s a good man, a good Senator, but “natural born citizen”, I don’t think so.
Natural Born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth. It’s not even quite the same as citizen at birth due to being born in the United States, via the 14th amendment.
Can’t change the definition just because I like the man, and he is my Senator.
painter ~ NO it DOESN"T!
Astonishing. Which parent doesn't count?
Why?
If you count forged documents as "adequate".
See this however is why I support supporting a VP candidacy for Cruz:
If he’s for some reason ruled ineligible, at least we’ve gone to bat for him in front of the nation and the world.
The GOP will have gone to bat for a minority candidacy. That is bigger than a lot of us can comprehend.
If he’s not ruled ineligible, then he’s Vice President.
Even better. :D
This would be partly correct. I would say that it has been partly defined legally. Here are the opinions I have heard on the matter:
1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.That's correct. Virtually everyone born in the United States is, legally speaking, a natural born citizen.
The major legal case that established this was US v. Wong Kim Ark (Supreme Court, 1898).
Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not US citizens and completely ineligible ever to become US citizens. His parents returned to China. He made two trips to China, the first time being admitted back into the US without incident on the grounds that he was a citizen. The second time, the customs and immigration authorities denied him re-entry, claiming that since he was Chinese he was not a US citizen in spite of the fact that he had been born in San Francisco.
Wong took his case through our legal system, and it reached the Supreme Court which declared that he was a citizen.
In the final declaration, since that's the question they were asked ("Is Wong a citizen?") that's what they said: "Wong is a citizen."
The entire RATIONALE of the case, which is legally binding precedent on a level equal with the final declaration, had to do with who is, and who is not, a NATURAL BORN citizen.
The implications of this natural born citizenship for Presidential eligibility were also discussed in the case, including by the dissent (a lone 2 Justices), who pointed out in the dissent that this meant that US-born Chinermen and members of other "inferior" races are eligible to the Presidency.
So in spite of the claim of birthers, who refuse to recognize the entire rationale of the Wong case as the precedent it is, the case established a crystal clear precedent.
If you were born in the United States to non-citizen, non-diplomat parents who were residing here, then you're a natural born citizen.
The children-of-diplomats exception is one that goes back for many centuries in US, colonial and (originally) English law.
The historical exceptions were: children of diplomats, children of foreign royalty, and children of invading armies.
So if Prince William and Kate were to come over to the United States and have their royal baby born in a hospital in New York City, according to the historical exceptions, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.
If diplomats of the UK or some other country have a baby here, that baby, historically, is considered to be born under the legal umbrella of that nation and not our own. So historically speaking, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.
And if Russia were to invade and seize the city of Fairbanks, Alaska, and hold it for a couple of years, and members of that invading army were to have a child in Fairbanks, it would not be a US citizen.
Except that exception is so extremely rare historically that I'm not quite sure what it would really mean. I would think that it would only exclude the child of a member of a foreign invading army that that soldier had with a mother who was not a US citizen. Because if a child's mother is a US citizen, then the child is a US citizen as well.
A couple of issues weren't necessarily addressed by the Wong decision, because they weren't really a factor in those days: Children of illegal aliens, and birth tourism.
Legally, one could argue that illegal aliens are not submitting to our legal system and laws, and therefore their children are not natural born citizens. Our current practice is that such children born here ARE natural born citizens. But I don't know that necessarily has to be the case. Not that it really matters, however. There does not exist the will in Congress to pass a law excluding such children from citizenship, and probably never will.
Birth tourism is a small but real issue. Still, the Wong decision was based on a case of RESIDENT non-citizen parents. So there's probably some wiggle-room to exclude anchor babies as well. Again, IF there were the will to do it. Which I doubt.
2. Some say that both parent must be Americans at the time of the Child’s birth.
Very, VERY few people have ever made this claim throughout our history. The very few who have, were usually people with little or no authority who were strongly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars.
3. Some say that as long as you never had to be naturalized to become a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. I believe this is the case with Cruz.
That's really the bottom line.
Strictly speaking, the case of a Ted Cruz has not been judicially decided.
But historically, from the very beginning of our Republic, when push comes to shove, the "real" definition of natural born citizen has always pretty much been "born a citizen" or "citizen by birth."
There have always been only two categories: Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.
The first includes everyone who was born a citizen. The latter includes everyone who became a citizen after birth, through some process of naturalization.
It also seems very clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended for folks like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President. The First Congress immediately passed a law declaring that the children born overseas to American parents were to be counted as natural born citizens. So it is clear that they intended those children to be eligible to the Presidency as well.
A later Congress changed the wording, dropping the words "natural born." But legally and historically speaking, my firm opinion is that that really doesn't matter. We could get into a lot of the details as to why, but this post is too long already.
I will briefly mention one of those details.
In 1834, James Bayard wrote "A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."
In that exposition, he wrote very specifically and very clearly that it was NOT necessary to be born in the United States in order to be Constitutionally eligible to be President. It was only necessary to be born a citizen, or to be a “citizen by birth.”
That was an explicit declaration that people like Ted Cruz are eligible.
Bayard’s exposition was read and approved by none other than Chief Justice John Marshall, the “Great Chief Justice” who dominated the US Supreme Court for 35 years starting just 13 years after the Constitution was adopted. Marshall had one minor correction to make. Other than that, he said, he hadn't seen anything in the entire book he didn't agree with.
If anyone was in a position to know what the Founders meant by the term, it was Chief Justice Marshall. From his approving letter to Bayard, it’s clear that he read Bayard’s book. And he would not have missed such an important matter as who was eligible to be President.
So while the case of a person born a US citizen abroad has never yet reached the Supreme Court, there are some very strong legal, historical and common sense arguments that such people are equally eligible. I haven't been able to find a single major legal scholar who thinks that someone like Ted Cruz is not eligible.
Here's what I would expect if Ted Cruz runs for and is elected President.
I would expect that someone would file a court case challenging his eligibility.
And then I would expect that our court system would affirm his eligibility. It would probably be appealed up to the Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court would hear the appeal or just decline to hear it and let it stand, I'm not sure. My gut feeling is that they definitely would hear it if a lower court said he was ineligible, and they would probably hear it if the lower courts said he was eligible.
If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.
I am not a lawyer by training. But I do understand the legal principles involved. And I've thoroughly digested the history of the issue, including all of the major legal cases throughout history (which I've read), and looked very closely at all of the legal and historical precedent.
Sorry, I messed up a couple of paragraphs a bit on that reply. Should’ve previewed before hitting the post button. :-)
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.