You’re really going to call her stay in Canada temporary? She was married there. She had a child there. She had a job there. She wasn’t on a vacation. She was living there.
Just like an ambassador lives abroad or a soldier serving in another country lives abroad. They are still Americans and his mother was still an American.
Donald agrees with me, only his duped followers continue to think this is a real issue.
Good stuff RC one. Good visual aid too.
It’s definitely wort pointing out again that every president born after the first Constitutional Convention (1781), was an American president, starting with Martin Van Buren, born in 1782.
Every president before him was born in American-English colony and was an American English president.
Al Hamilton, born in the British West Idies, was an ... American citizen, and pursuant to Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 was eligible to run for either office.
Some here are conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen”. They are two entirely different things for the purposes of understanding Article 2.
The Framers wanted successful candidates for *only these two jobs* to be citizens born in America.
Considering the past seven years, it isn’t difficult to understand their reasons.
As herself ---a natural born U.S. citizen.
Which, as far as I can tell, would bring us to
I'll leave it to you to find the qualifying statutory language, for yourself.
Once you do so (and even if you remain unclear, conflicted on the point -- or are persuaded to continue to rely upon the list of citations you have kindly enough supplied to us here) then I do ask that upon the next occasion which you speak of this subject on this forum, that you also provide and circulate the link which I just supplied to you for your own study.
That is the statute that is nearest to the subject matter, and which language leaves it clear enough that Cruz was at birth, a citizen of the United States due to the by now well established qualification of his own natural mother being a citizen of the United States, other past centuries conditional legal arguments pertaining to persons being subjects of sovereign rulers or foreign lands such as you have taken pains to gather and publish citation of, notwithstanding.
What matters now far more the those past court cases, is what the laws have by now have evolved to be, it being quite difficult from a legal standpoint to justify ignoring clear language in a statute having been signed into law short of finding Constitutional defect in codified language if law, which (I assume) was adopted by Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and signed into law by an acting President of the United States, at each juncture of the listed changes, the next link from Cornell University including notes as to the what and when of past modifications to the Code.
Umm, yeah. By definition, there is either “permanent” or “temporary.” They left, so it was temporary. Do you know of another term that is anywhere between permanent and temporary?