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.
Have you ever heard of ORIGINAL INTENT???????????????
I was using the logic of ORIGINAL INTENT. You are going to get embarrassed, just like you were on Gowdy.....
I wrote this, and it is well established that I’m not a liberal.
If RINOs throwing gas on this fire isn’t an attack then I don’t know what is.
You ignore the residency requirements of the mother and you leave out the residency requirements for the candidate.
Next bad analogy!
Wow first I was not being cute in any way. Second your response lacks any logic or reasoned thought whatsoever.
the logic is over your head apparently.
More like *hypocritical*.
Let’s see obama produce a birth certificate first.
you must be terrified of Iowa.....
What about the Naturalization Act of 1790? That law stipulates that the child of a woman who is a citizen is a “natural born citizen” if the father was ever a resident of the country, which Cruz’s father was prior to obtaining Canadian citizenship.
The truth of the matter is “natural born citizen” was never formally defined in the constitution itself, and it seems to me that The Naturalization Law of 1790 comes as close to settling this as anything.
Also, the constitution was ratified in 1788. This law came after ratification, a point I’m only making because Mollypitcher1 keeps saying 1791 (which is when the Bill of Rights was ratified)
Thanks, didn’t consider that at all in my answer.
The precise point I was trying to make was we don’t need to debate this because Cruz doesn’t play games on this like Obama and the left have.
We know his deal, and the analysis from Harvard Law Review makes a strong, if not settling, case that Cruz is a natural-born citizen.
Canada gives citizenship to those born on its soil--Ted Cruz may not have been aware of having dual citizenship until someone pointed it out to him. He then relinquished his claim to Canadian citizenship.
Did Obama ever renounce his Indonesian citizenship?
Canada gives citizenship to those born on its soil--Ted Cruz may not have been aware of having dual citizenship until someone pointed it out to him. He then relinquished his claim to Canadian citizenship.
Did Obama ever renounce his Indonesian citizenship?
There are no residency requirements. The child moves to the US at age 20 and runs for president at age 35.
We were taught a natural citizen had to be born on American Soil. I won’t touch these arguments. If Obama can be President anyone can.
The only way Hillary will have standing is if she is the Democrat nominee, Cruz is the Republican nominee, and Cruz wins the election. At that point he will be in the White House and she can sue to her heart's content. At the end of the day there is no doubt that the courts would rule Cruz is a natural born citizen.
The point is still dead on.
People no longer consider the actual meaning of the words in the Constitution. “Citizen at birth” is CLOSE ENOUGH to “Natural Born Citizen” to these uneducated boobs.
Their strongest argument was that the Constution is dead until we elect someone capable of restoring it...and Ted Cruz *might* be able to do that.
natural born Citizen == illegal alien
There's a Harvard law review that explains it somewhere.
**hick**
Yes seems pretty basic to me but some are going to twist themselves into a pretzel citing everything imaginable trying to explain away the obvious.
Yeah, ok. The reasoning and law cited in that article was definitely pretzel logic, especially compared to your mere say so.
You can disagree with what I posted, but at least I bothered to back up my opinion.
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.