Posted on 02/24/2015 7:07:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. Ted Cruz is getting close to announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. The Texan is spending almost as much time in Iowa and New Hampshire as he does on Fox News; he's hired a staff and collected a long list of fiercely conservative supporters..
There's at least one hitch: Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, in the Canadian province of Alberta. His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware; his father, a Cuban refugee working in Canada's oil fields. Thanks to his mother, Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth.
But that doesn't clear up a legal muddle that's as old as the Constitution: Is a U.S. citizen born abroad qualified to serve as president?
I don't agree with Cruz on most issues. He wants to repeal Obamacare, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and pass a constitutional amendment allowing states to outlaw gay marriage, just to take the top of his list. But I still hope he runs — because it's high time we established the right of Canadian-born Americans to serve as president.
Canadian Americans are perhaps our most underappreciated minority. Their contributions to U.S. culture range from hockey to comedy to, well, hockey. It's an impressive list: Wayne Gretzky, William Shatner, Lorne Michaels, Jim Carrey, Pamela Anderson, Alex Trebek. And now Ted Cruz.
At this point I should confess a personal stake: My oldest daughter was born in Toronto. Like Ted Cruz, she inherited U.S. citizenship through one of her parents. But we assured her that she could grow up to be president of the United States. (Proud of her dual citizenship, she says she'd like to serve as prime minister of Canada too.)
Canada is a wonderful country.....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Wrong, of course. Naturalized means that you were once NOT a citizen, but through a legal process you became a citizen. But some people are born citizens, even if they are born of one parent citizen in Canada, as an example. This is true because of statutes passed by various countries. But some people are born of two parents within the country that recognizes their citizenship. These people, no matter which country they are born in anywhere in the world, require NO accessorial documentation... They are natural born.
I know you want this to be true, but your desire has blinded you. The simple fact is that CRUZ WAS NOT BORN IN AMERICA. He is therefore NOT NATURAL BORN. The money you have no doubt already donated is a waste. Sorry.
The reason there is NO CONTROLLING COURT DECISION regarding this issue is that it has never been before a court. This is not surprising because it would obviously be rare that some major party would attempt to run a candidate who is obviously not eligible. Times have changed I guess. Federal statutes are NOT CONTROLLING here. The Constitution is controlling. All that matters is this... What did natural born mean when the Framers wrote it into the Constitution? This is ALL that matters.
So, in your world Congress can amend the Constitution by statute? Can Congress also void the 2nd Amendment? Just asking.
Of course. </sarcasm>
Naturalized means that you were once NOT a citizen, but through a legal process you became a citizen.
Agreed
But some people are born citizens, even if they are born of one parent citizen in Canada, as an example.
And these people are known as natural-born citizens.
But some people are born of two parents within the country that recognizes their citizenship. These people, no matter which country they are born in anywhere in the world, require NO accessorial documentation... They are natural born.
But where we disagree is your position that this is the only way to acquire natural-born citizenship. That is not supported by the Constitution or the courts or anything except your opinion. Natural-born citizens are those citizens who were not naturalized.
The argument wherein Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen stems from the thinking that his mother was an American citizen. This negated the need for Cruz to even be born on American soil in this line of thinking.
If that is so, then Rubio and Jindal can not be considered natural born, because even though they were born on American soil, neither had any parent who was already an American citizen. Their parents were citizens of another country and thus, their allegiance was to another country at the time of their sons’ births.
But if they are considered natural born solely because they born on American soil, regardless of parentage, then that knocks out Cruz because he was not born in America.
In all three cases, the best that can be said is that they were born with dual citizenship.
If that is so, how can a person born a dual citizen be considered “natural-born”? hey cannot be equivalent, as the dual citizen by nature has more than a singular allegiance.
If a dual citizen is the equivalent of natural born, then John Jay wasted his time with George Washington to get the words “natural born” added to the Constitution for the requirements for the Presidency, when Hamilton’s “citizen” would have sufficed.
“Natural born” must mean something. When growing up, it meant born on American soil to two American citizens.
What changed?
“OK, how about this? Parentage is 95% of the deciding factor, soil is 5%. Work for you?”
No, soil is 100% and parentage is 100%. One cannot be 95% a citizen or 5% a citizen. Cruz was 100% Canadian citizen born on their soil and 100% American citizen due to his mother being American. He had dual citizenship, 100% of each. I’ve said before, for certain offices one must choose which citizenship to keep as the job requires total allegiance to that country. Cruz gave up his Canadian citizenship so his total allegiance is to this country.
I want to warn you about this citizenship subject. As I said, there have been numerous threads about Cruz’s citizenship. Jim Robinson has come down hard on Freepers who continually say Cruz is not a natural born citizen and can’t be president. If you continue to push this over and over and over, as threads pop up, you will be warned to drop that, as he has warned others. You will find yourself with a zot if you continue after being warned.
I have pinged Jim to this post because I used his name and I would want him to correct me if I am wrong about such a warning and the consequence aftermath of violating that warning.
“The simple fact is that CRUZ WAS NOT BORN IN AMERICA. He is therefore NOT NATURAL BORN. The money you have no doubt already donated is a waste. Sorry.”
I was a Cruz person (I am a Texan)when he ran for the US Senate. I have given no money for his presidential campaign as he hasn’t declared yet. Once he does, he can count on my support in any way I can help.
Unfortunately, the “Constitution” is only good for those who want to obey it, who then get abused by those who could care less.
Please ... Oklahoma needs you... ;)
Hey Onyx, I was sending money to the CATO Institute 33 years ago. The CATO Institute is NOT GOD. Their opinion is flawed for the same reason that most conservatives have swung 180 degrees on this issue... They like Ted Cruz. So do I! But I won’t ignore facts to make him the 2nd ineligible President to be elected.
The framers were, alas, silent on that question.
This is the sum of liberty.. Freedom, justice, and the rule of law. If you have these three, no matter what, your land will be peaceful, happy, and thriving. Rule of law is just as important as freedom and justice. Without rule of law the other two will soon disappear. I love Ted Cruz. He would be my choice. He is not eligible. There is only one thing citizens cannot do, that natural born citizens can do... Be President. It is not an onerous burden for the country, nor for the person. The Framers didn’t have Ted Cruz in mind when they put in the provision; they had Barack Obama in mind. But the law is the law. Without it, and without a belligerent defense of it, we are lost as a nation.
You spin in circles to no avail
You want to use the definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at the time of the founding .. so I provide the definition of CITIZEN (inclusive) from webster
AND
The definition provided by the first congress which just happens to have 18 members of the Constitutional Convention as members.
That you wish to substitute your personal definition of the term NATURAL BORN CITIZEN may impress some but not any that are literate to the facts of the founding.
Saying that implies that every word in the Constitution is void because there was no Amendment defining each word. Ridiculous logic. When they wrote the phrase they knew what it meant because it was a universal notion. Citizenship that is natural is unassailable because it touches all the pertinent bases. Both parents are citizens, and the birth occurred in the homeland. The social contract is automatic when these circumstances are established.
Funny that you say some. Before Obama few if any believed you could be President if you weren’t born in America. What changed this narrative? Obama changed it. Your paradigm is the post-constitution paradigm. Hope you enjoy the bitter aftertaste of that.
“You want to threaten me for speaking my mind?”
I said “warn”, based on what has happened in the not distant past.
I guess those Constitutional Delegates that were in the 1st congress of 1790 must have been in on the Obama election conspiracy too..
If B.Obama under the law was born a citizen he is Natural Born (see 1790 again)
This does not mean that if he was born oversees and lied about it its ok.
It does not mean that if he committed fraud at columbia it would be ok.
it only means that the Constitution and the founders were consistent that any person born of a US citizen is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
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.