Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. The original intent of the “natural born” requirement for presidents was so that they would not have divided allegiances.
Cruz was born a dual citizen of the US and Canada. According to the original intent of the framers, he is disqualified.
What a lack of logic you have. What divided loyalties does Ted Cruz have? Tell me.
Let’s suppose this is a different scenario that has zero connection to Obama: Which I suspect is partly the reason for the birther crap on Cruz (gotta be consistent right?). I’ll make up an example for you to follow. A French baby is born while the mom is in America. She’s a wife whose husband has a job in our country. Soon they go home. Because our law (like Canada’s) confers citizenship automatically on the child, this baby is a dual citizen. The kid lives in France the vast majority of his life and becomes active in French politics. Assume said person has zero record of indicating any allegiance to America. Should his loyalty to France be suspect?
Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. The original intent of the “natural born” requirement for presidents was so that they would not have divided allegiances.
Cruz was born a dual citizen of the US and Canada. According to the original intent of the framers, he is disqualified.
This ^
Agree with you. The crux of the issue — the requirement for the President to be a natural-born citizen — is that he (or she) have no allegiance to any other country. Neither parent being at the time of birth a citizen of another country, not born in another country, not self-identifying as a foreign student to slip into an ivy-league school, and also not accepting any honorary or dual citizenship of another country.
As much as I appreciate and respect Ted Cruz, I do not believe he meets the requirement. However, I will vote for him if the alternative is any Democrat.... for the good of the country.
Ted Cruz was born to an American mother. He’s a natural born citizen and patriot in every sense of the word and I will support him to the hilt if he decides to run and is the strongest conservative running!! In fact, if that happens, FR will be Cruz Country!!
Go, TED, GO!!
FU Tokyo Rove, Chris Cristy, Jeb Bush, McCain, McBoehner, McGrahammesty, McFlake, McConnell and ALL GOP-e RINOS!!
The tea party rebellion is on!!
Anyone can’t live with that (as the say in Russia) tough shitski!!
So do you think Cruz has split allegiances between Canada and the US?
And does Mark Levin think you’re an idiot?
Two easy questions:
A: No
B;.....just sayin....
While I fully agree that a "Natural Born Citizen", according to the framers, is "one who is born in the country, to parents who are both citizens of that country at the time of that birth", we are far beyond such trivialities now (and I do not mean that the US Constitution is trivial).
We are just simply too far beyond the US Constitution, beyond the rule of law, beyond civilized behavior, and beyond where any voice of reason can or will be heard.
We still have our pretend elections, but we can no more vote our way to national survival than the Jews could vote their way out of the European holocaust.
You must be a bureaucrat, because you interpreted "original intent" as only a bureuacrat could...by saying that the technical defintion was the original intent, and ignoring what was really the original intent....which was no divided loyalties. Some 240 years ago, that loyalty test was a helluva lot different than it is now. Seriously, what kind of bureaucrat are you???
No, a triple citizen of Canada, Cuba & the US.
Your understanding of the original intent is incomplete. The Framers fear was that a wealthy or powerful foreign citizen, or one allied with a foreign power, would come to the US, get naturalized, and use their wealth and power to become president. For instance, James Madison said
The Ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election. Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt. a man attached to their respective politics & interests. No pains, nor perhaps expense, will be spared, to gain from the Legislature an appointmt. favorable to their wishes. Germany & Poland are witnesses of this danger. In the former, the election of the Head of the Empire, till it became in a manner hereditary, interested all Europe, and was much influenced by foreign interference. In the latter, altho’ the elective Magistrate has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of forign princes, and has in fact at length slid entirely into foreign hands.Note that St George Tucker writes
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country.If you look it up, you will see that Holland was ruled for a time by Spaniards, appointed stadtholders by Spain, and the office – as Tucker mentions – became hereditary. So his (and other Founders’) concerns were not for those born of foreigners on US soil who are US citizens, but for foreigners born elsewhere who are not, but who might be naturalized only for the purpose of seeking the presidency. See what Joseph Story has to say on this:
It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.This is well explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #68
these most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?Showing that the chief concern was not US citizens born of foreign immigrants, but rather concern about foreign governments trying to insert their own officials into the US government.
As for dual citizenship, obviously Cruz has lived as an American all his life. As Americans, our laws should apply, and the fact that another country also confers citizenship should not be allowed to control American law. What of the countries (such as Ireland) that used to confer citizenship on grandchildren of citizens? Should their law control American choices?
bttt
Strictly speaking, the fact of dual citizenship does not negative one’s natural-born Citizen status.
Theoretically, at least, it could be that one’s grandparent’s foreign citizenship status is enough to net that person unwanted status as a citizen of a foreign country. There are some countries starving for population and might try to repopulate their country in this manner.
But practically speaking, this is not an issue, as the benefit of restricting our president to an individual born in our country to parents who were our country’s citizens is putting at least one generation of American citizens between our president or presidential candidate, and any possible foreign allegience. To boot, no country whose laws confer citizenship at birth based on the citizenship status of one’s grandparent could never successfully claim an individual as their own over the claim of a country of which the individual in question is a natural-born Citizen, in the event the issue ever came to a head between the two countries in question.
But I wanted to be clear that dual citizenship is not the actual issue. A natural-born Citizen and the country they are associated like hand in glove, and no third-generation claim to that individual by a foreign country would ever hold up in an international law court.
By that standard, any hostile nation (Cuba, North Korea) could legally grant citizenship to all Americans, making all of us ineligible. It's absurd. Dual citizenship has no bearing on natural born citizenship.