Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Faith Presses On
And at this point, I see no reason not to interpret his birth as “natural born.”

I can not believe this same argument would be made if say Hillary was the subject.

I am so fed up with situational ethics, we here all know if the other side had a detestable candidate with exactly the same birth facts there would be endless threads here explaining why he was unqualified. D@/\/\ /\/ I hate lawyers.

226 posted on 01/12/2016 12:16:25 PM PST by itsahoot (Anyone receiving a Woo! Woo! for President has never won anything after the award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: itsahoot

It’s not “situation ethics.”

How many Presidents have we had in 200+ years now?

Not even 50 in all that time.

And there is even no process for certifying they are “natural born,” or not, is there?

That should tell you something.

Didn’t we come up against that lack of a legal process with the current President?

We would have a much different situation if there was such a process, but what would that be like? Who would administer it? And wouldn’t it be polarized?

There aren’t, in fact, these neat and absolute black lines on this issue, like in nature there are “natural” birth parents, because it seems no one wanted to draw them, knowing the Presidency was something very rare, that people’s circumstances are unique, and to try to draw neat and absolute black lines might have unintended consequences.

So consider, what was the “natural born” description seemingly meant to exclude, and to include? Certainly “natural born” was used to include as many people with the right background as possible, and exclude all with the wrong background for the job.

What I see is that this issue is starting to do just what secular humanists hope - getting people arguing over it rather than talking about actual things that matter.


232 posted on 01/12/2016 12:32:19 PM PST by Faith Presses On ("After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies ]

To: itsahoot
I've read his bio before but not so closely in regard to this matter. Here it is from Wikipedia:
"Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970,[3][4] in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to parents Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.[5][6][7] At the time of his birth, Cruz' parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drilling.[6][8][9][10][11] Cruz has said, “I’m the son of two mathematicians/computer programmers.”[12] The family moved to Texas in 1974.[13]

Rafael Cruz was born in Cuba, and his father was from the Canary Islands in Spain. Ted Cruz's mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware, and is of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian ancestry.[14][15] His father left Cuba in 1957 to attend the University of Texas at Austin, obtained political asylum in the United States after his four-year student visa expired, and became a Canadian citizen during his eight-year stay in that country.[16] Rafael Cruz ultimately became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005.[6][17][18][19] His mother earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics from Rice University in the 1950s.[20] Eleanor and Rafael Cruz divorced in 1997.[21]

Cruz had two older half-sisters from his father's previous marriage, Miriam Ceferina Cruz and Roxana Lourdes Cruz. Miriam, who had several brushes with the law during the 1990s and 2000s including charges of theft and public intoxication, died of a prescription drug overdose on January 10, 2011.[21] Roxana, who has declined media interviews, is a physician in Texas.[21][22][23] Cruz also had a half-brother, Michael Wilson (1960–1965), from his mother's previous marriage. He first learned of him from his mother during his teenage years.[23]"

So what do we have here? One of Cruz's parents is an American citizen. The other a Canadian asylum seeker. President Obama, the current president, has only one natural born citizen parent. The only difference I can see is that Cruz was born in Canada and lived there until he was four because his parents were in business there. He's always had American citizenship. Obama, on the other hand, was, as the official story goes, born in Hawaii and lived from about 6 to 11 in Indonesia. Are Americans who happened to be born to parents who were abroad for business or any other purpose therefore disqualified from being natural-born citizens and Presidential candidates? The Constitution is vague on this, and perhaps it's to let the public debate be the final judge. Think about the difference between someone like Cruz, having citizenship from birth and just living in Canada until 4, and then being raised to adulthood in the U.S. Then think about someone born in America but who has one foreign-born parent and might live mostly abroad from age two until they return to the U.S. permanently at age 25? There are endless scenarios.
241 posted on 01/12/2016 12:54:38 PM PST by Faith Presses On ("After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson