Embassies have medical centers. And the birth would be prepared for well in advance.
Or did you think they went to the local 3rd world hospital down the street to have their baby?
your response does not deserve further discussion...
Actually, I’ve been inside several embassies they do not have maternity wards at least not that I’ve ever seen. I lived in Asia for many years and the wives or employees of the embassies did use local hospitals in Hong Kong for child birth - at least the one that I know about.
This was the issue with McCain, he was born in a local hospital not the base hospital but the ruling was that he IS a Natural Born citizen. That said the issue might be that military and diplomatic personal are considered to be a type of “special case”
But generally, I think Mr Cruz would have a better claim to being natural born - even though he was born in Canada - than either an “Anchor Baby” or someone born in the US with only one parent as a citizen but then grew up in Indonesia.
He actually grew up in the US. This is why I laugh at the claim Barrack Obama is an African American. He knows nothing about the struggles and experiences of blacks in the US unless he read it in a book. He was, to take him at his word, born in Hawaii to a white mother. His father was from Kenya, then after the divorce his mother moved him to Indonesia. After that he lived in a lily white area of US mid-West. He has a about as much first hand knowledge of what it means to be black in the US as the average Austrian or Indonesian. Culturally, I am probably blacker than he is having grown up in Alabama.
The wording of the Constitution is vague therefore the argument is semantic, interpreting what a couple of words mean. Well, I believe the founding fathers left the words vague on purpose because they knew that it is impossible to try and anticipate every situation but they knew that reasonable people could see that the spirit of the law was obeyed even if it is impossible to list all possibilities in statute.
The issue, as I see it: Is this person an American? Is the US where his allegiance lies? That is what is actually meant by Natural Born. His mother was a citizen, his father became one, Mr Cruz grew up in the US. He understands what the US is, he exemplifies and promotes what it means to be an American. I think that is what is meant in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers did not want a person who was an adult immigrant elected to the office because they did not want a person with the ambition to become a king or emperor; or more insidiously someone who was an agent of a foreign government
If Mr Cruz had come to the US as a teenager then the argument could be adequately made that he was not eligible. If he’d ever held a non-US passport or claimed non-US citizenship then he would not be qualified. If he hadn’t grown up in the US the argument could also be made.
He is not and has never claimed to be a citizen of another country. Just because Canada or even Cuba might claim him does not mean he ever claimed them. Think of the problem that would cause. All the Cuban would have to do to keep a Republican from being elected was to say “We grant this person Cuban Citizenship” and mail the passport against their will. To be a dual citizen the person must claim to be a citizen of two countries, Mr Cruz has never done that. He has lived in the US since he was small child. He has no other allegiance to a “foreign prince”
In common law the law, (as I understand it) is what the population thinks it is. It is precedent, but the precedent is not set in stone and admits that extenuating circumstances matter. The jury has a right to apply the law to the situation at hand using precedent as a guide. That is the idea of a jury of peers rather than of a legal code. I think given the evidence that Mr Cruz IS in his heart of hearts an American the verdict would be overwhelmingly in favor of saying yes, he is natural born.
The law should not prevent us from doing what is right. By using a tortured semantic argument to deny that an American is an American people are turning good into evil and delivering the nation to those who would harm it.
I am making a natural law argument because I think that is what the Founding Father’s did and why the left apparent wiggle room in the Constitution.
The question is, which is more important, a tortured definition of citizenship or looking at a person’s ethics, morality, honesty, patriotism and ability to accomplish the job?
I would argue Mr Cruz has a greater case to run for President than I do. I was born in the US state of Alabama and both my parents were US citizens at the time. My family had been in the US since the 1630’s. I am a Natural Born Citizen but my wife is Chinese and works for the Chinese government (No neither she nor I are Communist). That tie I believe should disqualify me far more for the office of President than the fact that Mr. Cruz was born to US citizen mother who was temporarily living in Canada. It would I think disqualify my children as well.
Just my thoughts
I have the asbestos shirt on go ahead flame away
So the child of a US citizen serving in the US Embassy in London or Paris, and born in the London Maternity Hospital or the American Hospital (in Paris), would not be eligible to be president?
These hospitals are considered by many to be the finest in their respective cities for childbirth, and could well be part of the carefully made plans of a US diplomat. I don’t think the embassy would maintain a full-service medical center in either of these dities.