Posted on 08/19/2013 6:17:17 PM PDT by kristinn
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced Monday evening that he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, less than 24 hours after a newspaper pointed out that the Canadian-born senator likely maintains dual citizenship.
“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said in a statement. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American.”
SNIP
“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,” Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I continue to say don’t look any gift horse in the mouth, perhaps it would be intelligent to modify that exclusion to something like American residency all of one’s adult life, you’re probably excluding some very competent and qualified patriotic people from being president while at the same time creating a distraction in the case of the current Resident, who is so clearly incompetent wherever it turns out he was born. I know from my own experience that being born in one country, moving to another at any early age, is almost identical in cultural experience to being native born. Yet people make such a big to-do about it when they find out, “oh you weren’t born here (wrinkle of the nose, etc)” like it matters at all. The nativist sentiment is very much at odds with the true meaning of exceptionalism and almost in a self-evident way, one would think.
“The Panama Canal Zone was, while Guam and Puerto Rico still are, unincorporated territories of the United States. Though persons born there can be statutory U.S. citizens, they are not natural born citizens.”
Sorry. Legal precedent has already shown this not to be the case. So long as it’s under the direct administration of the Federal government it counts. Someone born on Guam is a NBC.
I feel the same. Everybody has their own criteria.
“The nativist sentiment is very much at odds with the true meaning of exceptionalism and almost in a self-evident way, one would think.”
Peter, I respectfully disagree. The desire to prevent foreign entanglements is part and parcel with the desire to have an American born president. Look at what happened with the United Kingdom and Hanover. Having a ruler with significant and divided interests is not a good thing for keeping the United States out of wars.
Agree. A natural born citizen has no foreign citizenship to renounce.
In practice, the talent pool for POTUS is much, much thinner than you imply. Last November should be sufficient evidence to prove that assertion!
The Constitution says Natural Born. So be it. Only, they forgot to define it. So, we should go with the most obvious meaning, which is, citizen by birth. Cruz qualifies! And has way more IQ points than the average contender! End of story. Hilbots, go away!
What legal precedent?
Nov 2012 was a question of having just enough fraud in certain counties to pull a loser over the finish line.
I prayed before I went to bed that night and heard the words that “The other guy will win. He will steal the election.”
In my head, I thought that meant Romney. I cancelled the stealing part. It was wrong.
Gotta link for that? Not that it matters.
It seems he was definitely entitled to be Canadian, as far as Canada was concerned (Canada's loss, our gain).
But Cuber?
Which would probably have shot his daddy, should he have returned.
Trashing Cruz's father, are we? Cruz's father rebelled against the Cuban dictatorship. That's not the same as serving in the US armed forces, but, when it comes to weighing cojones, it will suffice.
As far as citizenship, Cruz is a citizen by birth, and, therefore, Natural Born and Qualified.
You misunderstood Justice Story’s commentary with respect to Article 2. The grandfather clause applied not only to Washington and others who were not natural born citizens of the United States but also to naturalized citizens such as Alexander Hamilton who was born in the British settlement of Nevis Island West Indies.
The colonies became states with the Declaration of Independence. The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The Constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first presidential election took place in the year following the ratification.
All colonialists that had automatically become citizens were eligible to be President if they had accumulated 14 years of residency prior to election. The 14 years was to accomodate persons held in high esteem such as Hamilton and others. Hamilton had come to the New York Colony in 1773, exactly 14 years before the adoption.
The citizen requirement at the time of adoption also known as the grandfather clause was not aimed at only foreigners that had shown great patriotism but to all citizens at the time. Again the 14 year requirement was put there as Justice Story describes but you construed a narrower scope and you have gone off on a tangent of error where I expect you cannot return from because you are too invested in your own fallacy.
Here are Justice Story’s comments:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html
§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. 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. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.
“it will suffice.”
The law says otherwise.
“Natural Born”
The law also says otherwise. Natural born must be born in the US or in the exception that you cited which doesn’t apply to Cruz in any way shape or form.
The same law which gives him American citizenship gives him Cuban citizenship as well.
It seems monstrously unfair but we know by now it’s foolish to take chances with a debatable thing if alternatives are available. A solidly, unquestionably American-born candidate is needed.
There are more cases that uphold the natural born citizen requirement as distinct form citizen by birth than what you have cited. The history of the natural born citizen requirement is longer and more acute than your cited cases.
Natural Born Citizen is not equal to Citizen by Birth,
Natural Born Citizen is a subset categorization to Citizen by Birth. It is more restricted as intended by John Jay in his letter to General George Washingon.
Citizen by Birth is a superset and encompasses more citizens that those that are natural born or second generation.
To which Cuban law do you refer? Not that it matters. But only Cuber gets to define Cuban law, and an authoritative citation would be an interesting conversation piece.
Yeah, right.
Like Barack Hussein Obama, born on 4 August 1961 in Honolulu. (You don't think so? Show the judge your evidence!)
Barry's Natural Born, all right, but the problem is, he's not an American in his own mind. No stipulations the Founders could have come with could protect us from electing such as he!
Anybody trying to tweak the definition of Natural Born to exclude either Hussein or Ted Cruz is a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.
So I guess you are saying that those of us who said that Obama was not a natural born citizen were wrong.
“To which Cuban law do you refer? Not that it matters. But only Cuber gets to define Cuban law, and an authoritative citation would be an interesting conversation piece.”
Most would actually consider that the Cuban takes priority as that runs through his father, not his mother. It’s been given earlier up the thread. Son of a Cuban national has automatic Cuban citizenship.
I don’t see what’s unfair about it. America should be governed by one of their own. It’s like complaining that Russia is governed by, well, Russians.
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.