I pretty much believe that's what Cruz did in time. I don't know all the particulars yet, but there's nothing in this world that drives me more crazy than watching a FReeper claim one set of rules for over five years, turn right around and argue the opposite line of reasoning when it's his own fair haired boy running.
His mother was single at the time. She was in a foreign nation. Cruz currently holds duel citizenship from what I understand. I'm sorry, but that does raise questions for me.
What amazes me, is that in a nation of 317 million people, we only seem to be able to find the fringe person that can lead. What the hell is that all about? We don't have any citizens that were born on U. S. soil that have a sound enough Conservative mind that they can run, win, and lead this nation forward?
If we don't, then what the hell are we wasting our time on? And here you are already setting up the scenario so nobody can discuss the issue. Wow, how very pro First Amendment of you.
I like Cruz a lot, but I want him vetted just the same way we would any other person. I am not convinced he is eligible yet, and I'm not going to sit here and have you tell me whether I can discuss the issue here or not.
No, he doesn't.
/johnny
Click on the icons per issue on this page to see his position, record and quotes on each one:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Texas/Ted_Cruz/Views/
His mother was single at the time
Where the heck did you get that????
Discuss the issue all you want. Me, I got better things to do with my time. As I said in the original reply, I’m staying away. Beginning right now.
Madison commented in his presidency that children born to citizens (citizen father automatically bestowed citizenship to the mother via marriage in that era) at sea or temporarily abroad were to be considered ‘natural born’.
The idea is that American citizens maintain a ‘domicile’ on US or US controlled/possessed soil and are able to maintain a ‘residence’ abroad. For purposes of immigration, ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ are legally distinct terms.
It is clear the fact that Cruz was born in Canada does not render him ineligible to be president because his mother was there for work, not for immigration to Canada. In other words, her domicile was in the USA while her residence was temporarily in Canada.
Where Ted Cruz gets hung in this is that it was not his father who was an American citizen at the time of his birth nor was his father automatically bestowed with citizenship via marriage to his citizen mother.
What is needed is a new law or an amendment to existing law with retroactive and prospective provisions that clearly address the distinction between ‘natural born citizen’ versus ‘citizen by birth’. We know that all natural born citizens are citizens by birth but not the other way around. In set language, natural born citizens are a proper subset of citizens by birth; the requirements for natural born are stricter than those for citizen by birth.
Why was the bar for natural born set higher than that for citizen by birth?
It was John Jay’s letter to General George Washington that requested a higher bar for the presidency when the Constitution was being drafted and resulted in ‘natural born’ meaning ‘second generation’ as a requirement for the presidency.
John Jay was clearly concerned that a President as Commander-in-Chief must be loyal and have allegiance to the United States because a person with divided loyalties and muddled allegiance would have command of the Army and hence would be in a position to become a tyrant.
I am persuaded that Barack Obama has divided loyalties and muddled allegiance to the United States.
But with Cruz, it is clear he is American through and through in spirit, loyalty and allegiance.