The U.S. is a by blood nation and not a by soil nation like others (Canada). Kings did by soil. Born on their soil, they own you (subject). The founders rejected that and made natural born citizenship a blood thing. It doesn’t matter where you are born, it matters who are your parents. In the early days it was just the blood of the father. Later it could also be the blood of the mother with stipulations on her age, etc. Cruz passes this test. Obama does not. Remember it is not where you are born but who your parents are. Obama’s mother could not pass on her citizenship at the time Obama was born. And since I bet that he was never naturalized, he is not even a citizen. Since this also blows up the whole anchor baby issue, the dems will fight tooth and nail against it.
All persons born or naturalized “IN” the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
subject to both political & physical (local) jurisdiction. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3407761/posts?page=18#18
Many SCOTUS cases say the opposite of what you do. No SCOTUS case says what you do.
Nonsense. If the framers intended what you claim they would not have made a clear distinction between ‘natural born’ citizens and citizens in Article 2, sectin 1, clause 5.
You may as well claim that there’s really no difference between a “lightning bug” and lightning; there’s a big difference if the latter lands on your head.
So Cruz has three options: 1. get a constitutional amendment passed changing Art.2; 2. Lose to Trump; or, 3. Lose to the Democrats, a. In court, b. The first Tuesday this November.
It’s starting to look a lot like #2.
That’s a ridiculous proportion. With the one parent approach, if you have a single American ancestor, you are eligible to be president.
For example, do you really believe Princess Gabriella of Monaco is a NBC? Under your theory, she is. Grace Kelly was a citizen so Prince Albert automatically became one even though he wasn’t born here. And now, his children are all NBCs as well. And so will their kids be, and so forth.
I think its a little hard to believe that this is the system the founding fathers were trying to setup. Ted Cruz is not a NBC.
Sorry it is Both!
More importantly as you suggest it is the parentage that is most important. NBC is like a human pedigree,
A puppy born to a poodle mom and poodle dad is a poodle!
A puppy born to a poodle mom and a beagle dad is a mongrel.
Ted Cruz is like the latter. He has elements of both parent’s citizenship. He is not 100% American. He is Cuban-American, or, if you like, American-Cuban.
The Founders intended the NBC clause of Article II to be exclusionary. It was intended to weed out those who were not 100% American....
.....Born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens.....
If Cruz were a Canine we’d all call him a mutt......
Just as the poodle-beagle is ineligible for competing in an AKC Show
so is
Cruz ineligible for running for the Office of the President of the US.
The one key word everyone works so hard to hide is that natural born citizenship is passed on ONLY when the child is of TWO (TWO, TWO, TWO, TWO, TWO, TWO, TWO, TWO, TWO, 2, 2, 2, 2,) parentS (SSSSSSSSSS) that where BOTH US citizens at the time of the child's birth. One doesn't cut it.
You will be a child of natural birth and US citizenship conferred upon the child and not having to go through all the naturalization processes if you are born of one US citizen parent. But you are not a natural born citizen, just a US citizen that endured a natural birth. There is a difference. Words mean things when the law gets involved instead of politics and imagery, hopes and wishes, a wink and a nod.
Yes obviously the founders would consider the son of a Cuban born in Canada a natural born American citizen. /s
I don’t know where you get your info but James Madison stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; ” This was spoken by Mr. Madison on 22 May 1789.
Woodrow Wilson and Democrats generally believe in blood, also race. The Republican was founded to revive the principles expressed in the Declaration, that all men are created equal and endowed with rights. When Lincoln said the country was “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” he meant specifically to repudiate the Democratic doctrine of blood and race as expressed in the Dred Scott decision. Notice which party, today, is the party of race, characterized as “people of color” versus “white people of privilege.” As to whether Republicans will join with white supremacists to counter non-white supremacists may soon be relevant.