What Difference Does it make!?!?!
Cruz/Rand 2016
Interestinger and interestinger. (Or more and more interesting for the grammar nazis.)
If this turns out to be the case, Cruz would be at the very top of my list of favored candidates. He has the guts, the communication skills, and the experience to run a great campaign and be a great leader.
The birthers will disagree.
According to birthers, Cruz fails the criteria on two accounts. 1) Only his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. His father was a Cuban immigrant to the U.S. 2) Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada - his parents were there on business with the oil business.
IBTZ (of the birther entourage).
His path to citizenship pretty much finishes him.
He was indeed a US citizen at birth, but did he claim to be ‘natural born’ as well?
So was Obama's.
A couple weeks back on Rush Limbaugh some liberal believed natural born meant the child was born vaginally. however a child born by c-section was not naturally born. I know the difference being a conservative and so forth. but thought to put the liberal view out there about natural born (sometimes ignorance is a real problem).
I believe Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution features national security provisions crucial to the long-term integrity and sovereignty of the United States of America.
What is the operative definition of 'natural born Citizen' in the context of the Constitution and on what do you base your answer?
What Difference Does it make!?!?!
That is just great--because I am a strong Cruz fan.
Did he happen to give you a USCA citation which provides for how he got to be a U S Citizen at Birth?
There are two issues here: One, was he a citizen when he was born; and Two, was he a "Natural Born Citizen" within the meaning of Article II, Sec. 1 of the U S Constitution. Which issue are we talking about?
And we don't know all the facts with respect to the current hot issue which is citizen at birth.
What we do know is that he had a mother and father who were married to each other; that his mother was a U S Citizen; that his father was not a U S Citizen; and that Cruz himself was not born within the confines of the several states.
What we do not know is the exact date of his birth; the exact date of the birth of his mother; and the amount of time his mother was a resident of the United States after age 14.
The question of citizenship at birth turns on the citizenship statute in effect at the time he was born. I believe that statute provided that a person who was the son of a citizen mother, non-citizen father, is a citzen at birth only if the mother had resided in the United States for five years after the age of 14. That is in part based on an assumption about Kruz's birth date--the statutory perameters changed at various times in the 60's and 70's. The effective date for the amendments of the statute are in the USCA footnotes for anyone who chooses to look.
There are two further problems with the statute.
The consensus of the Constitutional Law Bar (per the Cornell Law Review article on the subject) is that the statute is unconstitutional because a father citizen's child would not have the same rights if the mother was not a citizen.
And, further, the Congressional Research Service opinion on the topic attempts to equate citizenship at birth with Natural Born Citizenship at Law. There are several reasons why that reasoning is faulty. But one of the principal reasons as one of the posters to which this is addressed infers above, may be that Congresses only power over citizenship is naturalization--thus if Congress seeks to make a person who is not a Natural Born Citizen a citizen at birth even though such person was born outside the geographical limits of the several states, such citizenship is by naturalization and not Natural Born.
Absent a naturalization proceeding (which has not happened in the case of Cruz) Cruz is a citizen only if the mother citizen statute is constitutional and his mother meets the statutory test to confer citizenship--and citizenship (for a term of years--I believe 9) is required to be eligible to hold the office of United States Senator. Both questionable.
Further, as to issue #2, Natural Born under Article I: Birth outside the United States resolves the issue against him.
Cruz was born in Canada to parents weren’t working in the oil industry while there. Unlike McCain whose parents were in the military or Obama who supposedly was born in HI. Cruz’s father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 2005.
And his father held citizenship in which nation at the time of Sen. Cruz’ birth?
Oh goody: Our next usurper is on the way.
Revealed: How immigrants are gaining U.S. citizenship by getting married on Skype - to people thousands of miles away
Online global unions via webcam are the first step to attaining a visa or citizenship for a non-American spouse
Many fear that such proxy weddings will help facilitate marriage fraud, as well as see an increase in the number of sex trafficking victims
A rise in Skype weddings is allowing immigrants to legally gain American citizenship by exchanging vows from opposite ends of the globe, it was revealed today.
Per the Constitution, Congress has the power of "naturalization."
Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen at birth.
He's clearly not a "natural born Citizen."