Posted on 08/13/2013 3:12:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Via Mediaite and MFP, forget the legal niceties about what “natural born” might or should mean and look at this from a court’s perspective. Realistically, no judge is going to disqualify a national figure who stands a real chance of being the nominee of one of the two major parties unless the law leaves them no wiggle room to rule otherwise. Tens of millions of Americans would be willing to vote for Ted Cruz; to strike him from the ballot on a technicality in an ambiguous case would be momentously undemocratic. Against that backdrop, the Supreme Court would almost certainly end up reading “natural born” in the narrowest way, excluding anyone who was born abroad of two non-citizen parents but including everyone else. Cruz, who was born in Canada but whose mother was a U.S. citizen, would qualify, not only for the reason Ace gives here but more broadly because courts don’t want to be seen as hard-ass enforcers of what’s perceived by many to be an unusually archaic bit of the Constitution. They’ll dump a true foreigner because they have to. They don’t have to dump the son of an American citizen like Cruz, so they won’t. Take it to the bank.
But never mind that. Given the angst and ambiguity over the “natural born” clause in the last two cycles, why not pass an amendment to replace it with something like, say, a 25-year residency requirement? The point of the clause was to make sure that rich foreigners couldn’t cross the ocean and buy their way into the presidency, which wasn’t a baseless concern for a group of former British subjects who worried about loyalists to the throne subverting the revolution. In practice, though, it means that someone who’s born on U.S. soil but lives their entire life abroad, only to return and run for president decades later, is constitutionally more trustworthy than someone like Cruz who was born abroad but has lived his entire life here. Does anyone question whether Ted Cruz, decades later, might be more loyal to Canada than to the U.S.? Right at this moment, House Republicans are gearing up to pass a variation of the DREAM Act that would grant citizenship to illegals who were brought here at a young age by their parents on the theory that the place where you’re raised is more likely to shape your patriotic loyalty than the happenstance of your birth. If those kids are trustworthy enough to help decide at the polls who the president should be, why shouldn’t they be eligible for the presidency themselves? In a democracy, the president is, or should be, drawn from the citizenry. People who take certain draconian disqualifying actions, like committing felonies, are an exception, but what action has Cruz taken? Replace “natural born” with a residency requirement, which gives people the power to prove their loyalty, and you solve that problem.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
It’s like saying a woman is more beautiful than Hitlery, or a man is more faithfully devoted to his wife than Klinton.
Link?
I just read one poster say that Canadian law doesn’t permit anchor babies to be Canadian citizens, so his birth there to foreign citizens didn’t make him a Canadian citizen.
That is irrelevant to me, however. US law says he’s automatically a US citizen at birth. It does. It’s irrefutable. Armchair hypothesizing might be fun, but it isn’t the law.
Well the girl(?) was snuggled up to Chrispy Cream and where was that semi-dem Christy?
I’ve gotta take lots from her with a big grain of salt.
Art I, Sect 8 says, among other powers: The Congress shall have Power ....To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Bingo!
You are correct!
Naturalization.
Congress has the power of "naturalization." Only.
They do not have the Constitutional authority to make laws to determine who may be a "natural born Citizen." And it's a darn good thing they don't have that authority.
Naturalization. Only.
Since Ted Cruz's birth status in a foreign land is fully dependant upon what Congress said at the time (via laws they passed), foreign born Ted Cruz could not be a "natural born Citizen."
They didn’t need that for mclame, it was dem congress cover for nobama.
Sometimes is a good idea to do your research before setting your mind on a false notion.
US Law passed by the Congress says that Cruz was automatically a citizen at birth:
Also, the US Constitution specifically gives Congress power over all issues involving naturalization. Period.
Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] (a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
“I just read one poster say that Canadian law doesn’t permit anchor babies to be Canadian citizen”
This is incorrect.
“Citizenship is automatic and goes back to the day the person was born”
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules_2009.asp
Cruz is a Canadian citizen by birth.
“so his birth there to foreign citizens didn’t make him a Canadian citizen.”
Cruz’s father isn’t an American either, he’s a Cuban national who was residing in Canada at the time.
This really isn’t shaping up very well for you. Not only is Cruz a Canadian citizen at birth, your definition makes him a citizen of Cuba too. That gives him not just two, but three nationalities.
I like Cruz, but having a Cuban and Canadian citizen in the white house is not acceptable. We can do better.
“It’s irrefutable”
Given as you are wrong about Canadian law, what else are you wrong about?
To define who needs to be naturalized means you have to define who is already a citizen. That is covered at the end of section 8, where it says: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. “
Ted Cruz did not have to be naturalized because he was already declared to be an automatic citizen at birth.
The law says so. And the Constitution gives Congress the power to decide.
Same for Cruz. One Citizen Parent is all it requires.
Legal standards only apply to republicans.
I say Ted Cruz for VP.
This time.
Although I’m ready to vote for him for president, if it comes to that.
:D
Thank you. I took exception for the same reason but found no easy way to express it. You did. Thanks.
Actually, what I wrote was that Canadian law was irrelevant. Check the post.
The point is that the US Congress gets to decide who is automatically by birth a US citizen and Ted Cruz has always been a US citizen because he is one by birth....automatically...and by LAW.
So, the truth is that I have the law on my side and you have armchair hypothesizing on your side.
Congress shall have the power to...make uniform rule of naturalization and...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I also have the US Constitution on my side. But, I’m repeating myself. The law isn’t going to change in the next few hours because of this discussion.
The letter is still available at the Kapi’olani Health Foundation web site.
For Obama to name his own birth hospital is fine. For the hospital to do it is a violation of HIPAA regulations.
We do know that three weeks after his son’s birth, Obama Senior told Immigration and Naturalization Service Agent William Wood that he had a wife and a newborn son and Obama Senior listed a street address in Honolulu as their residence. Obama Senior was seeking a student visa extension on August 31, 1961.
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/07/INS-6.jpg
“Canadian law was irrelevant.”
Canadian law is not irrelevant.
First you state that “Canadians do not award birthright citizenship”. I cite the actual law which shows that Canada does in fact do so, and that Cruz, by virtue of being born in Canada is a Canadian citizenship. Furthermore - he has loyalties to Canada that cannot be stripped away. Part of natural born citizenship gets to the heart of the issue of American governance. The presidency is the highest office of the land. Allowing someone from outside of America to take this office is no difference than allowing a King to rule over America.
The founders express this concern quite clearly. The issue is that insofar as an American has divided loyalties (from his place of birth), that this would inhibit his capacity to adequately govern America.
I like Cruz. But I believe that this door should remain firmly shut. It opens up to many shenanigans which this closes.
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, December 22, 1970, to a US citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.
Relevant Canadian law in December 1970 is Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-19, s. 5(1,3)
http://ia700401.us.archive.org/10/items/revisedstatutes197001uoft/revisedstatutes197001uoft.pdf
Relevant US law in December 1970 is Pub. L. 82-414 § 301(a)(7) (66 Stat. 163, 236)
Please show where “citizen” equals “natural born citizen”.
Why can a Senator or Representative be a citizen, but a President must be a natural born citizen?
If the whole idea of adding the words “natural born” to the requirements for President by the Constitutional Convention was to make sure a President did not have divided loyalties to America,how does that apply to someeone not born of two citizen parents?
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, so Canada can claim him as a citizen.
Ted Cruz’s mom was an American, so he can be an American citizen.
Ted Cruz’s dad was a Cuban citizen, so Cuba could claim him as a citizen.
Three countries have a claim on Cruz. How is that not a case of divided loyalties?
Which of the three countries takes precedence?
A law of naturalization does not supplant the Constitution.
Neither does the 14th Amendment change the requirements for the Presidency.
You cannot keep claiming “citizen” is equivalent to “natural born citizen”, otherwise any anchor baby is eligible to be President of the United States.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, May 28, 1971, to a Cuban citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.
His father is Cuban citizen Mario Rubio, who naturalized as a US citizen 1975.
His mother is Cuban citizen Oria Garcia, who naturalized as a US citizen 1975.
His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Marco Rubio is NOT 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.
