Posted on 02/24/2015 7:07:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. Ted Cruz is getting close to announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. The Texan is spending almost as much time in Iowa and New Hampshire as he does on Fox News; he's hired a staff and collected a long list of fiercely conservative supporters..
There's at least one hitch: Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, in the Canadian province of Alberta. His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware; his father, a Cuban refugee working in Canada's oil fields. Thanks to his mother, Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth.
But that doesn't clear up a legal muddle that's as old as the Constitution: Is a U.S. citizen born abroad qualified to serve as president?
I don't agree with Cruz on most issues. He wants to repeal Obamacare, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and pass a constitutional amendment allowing states to outlaw gay marriage, just to take the top of his list. But I still hope he runs — because it's high time we established the right of Canadian-born Americans to serve as president.
Canadian Americans are perhaps our most underappreciated minority. Their contributions to U.S. culture range from hockey to comedy to, well, hockey. It's an impressive list: Wayne Gretzky, William Shatner, Lorne Michaels, Jim Carrey, Pamela Anderson, Alex Trebek. And now Ted Cruz.
At this point I should confess a personal stake: My oldest daughter was born in Toronto. Like Ted Cruz, she inherited U.S. citizenship through one of her parents. But we assured her that she could grow up to be president of the United States. (Proud of her dual citizenship, she says she'd like to serve as prime minister of Canada too.)
Canada is a wonderful country.....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“Your idea that a military base in a foreign country constitutes American SOIL is wishful thinking on your part.”
The base is considered American soil and any American military connected to that base retains his/her American citizenship. My American son was in the air force and was on American bases in England, Korea, Germany, and Hawaii (however Hawaii is part of the US). Those bases are considered American soil as our military owns them.
Each base has an election officer for the USA. I know this because I was a judge of the Early Voting Ballot Board in my county and those military ballots came from various bases around the world if the military person had a residence in our county or that county was the last place the military person had lived before shipping overseas. During that time, I spoke to the election officer on one of those bases. The base is considered a USA possession for our military stationed there to vote. This election officer collects the ballots and sees they get sent to the USA correct county.
Because the offspring get their citizenship due to the citizenship of their parents. Being born on a military base in a foreign country has no bering on that because U.S. military bases are not U.S. territory.
Yes... But your citizenship would be retained whether you were born on base, in a foreign country, or on the moon. However, your NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP is void. People simply CANNOT understand the difference. There is only ONE prohibition with regard to this issue. YOU MUST BE NATURAL BORN to be President.
Law dictionaries. Historical references. Even basic word of mouth. It was ALWAYS understood that you had to be born in country of citizen parents to be natural born. It is only since Barack INSANE Obama that we have begun to interject our wishes into the narrative.
You are so close, but... If a court document is needed to establish citizenship you are definitely not natural born. However, it is also true that if the legislature must make a statute to confirm citizenship you are equally NOT natural born. If one parent is foreign, as an example, the potential is there absent statute, that even if you were born in America your citizenship is a question. Obama is therefore NOT natural born, and Cruz is definitely NOT natural born.
Please Sir, stop helping our cause you are a detriment to logic and reason.
Your style is more befitting Nelson Muntz far more then Lord Nelson of HMS Victory.
Yes Doodle. With regard to citizenship, the earth under you when you are popped out is ALMOST meaningless. Simple citizenship is gained by parentage, not acreage. However, natural born citizenship is a special citizenship in which all the stars must be in alignment. Your parents must be citizens, and your butt must fall on American soil. Why this is so hard for supposed smart people to grasp is a mystery to me.
I understand... You think that the only people we can find to run for president are people NOT born in America. Strange that you think this should be a prerequisite, and equally strange that you WANT to undermine the Constitution for political gain. I have an idea... Why don’t you pick a candidate who is eligible?
Since you seem to be unable to show a definition that supports your statement I will provide the most recognized and contemporaneos definition available
Webster 1828
5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.
Since Persons born of a Citizen do NOT have to be naturalized they MUST be native.
And that Sir is how the word CITIZEN was defined and used at the time Constitution
Natives are not even necessarily citizens. You are so confused and self-deluded that it would be a waste of time to try and convince you of anything.
The natives are restless... Ever heard that? It refers to people born in country, ergo NATIVE to the country. But citizenship is a SOCIAL compact, so natives are not necessarily even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. You are playing in an arena, but you don’t know what town your in, what game is being played, or what the rules are. Go home, get a book, read for a long time, then come back and say you are sorry.
If that were true then we wouldn't be seeing all these contentious threads. The fact is that sources as diverse as William Blackstone and James Madison and Roger Taney as well as other lawyers and politicians since them have not defined natural born citizen as you and Vattel do. Why are you right and they wrong?
So you keep saying. Federal statutes have defined and re-defined the way natural-born citizenship is acquired over the course of our history.
Let us reason.. shall we? Can we agree that citizenship and natural born citizenship are two different things? Of course they are, the Framers would not embellish the Constitution with meaningless phrases. Agree? So, citizenship is DIFFERENT than natural born citizenship in some fashion. Agree? What could the difference be? Or, better put, what would make natural born special? There are only a few options. One would be that both parents are citizens. Why? Because if one parent is a citizen and one is not a statute is absolutely necessary to assure American citizenship. Why? Because other countries have their laws, and their laws may confer, or even demand citizenship if one of their citizens is the parent. So one parent citizen is nothing special, it doesn’t even guarantee citizenship. The only other thing to consider is soil. Soil is not typically the deciding factor, because we are dealing is SOCIAL compacts. But the Framers understood that soil IS important to the PERSON. An example; my son was born in Michigan, but left when he was one year old. To this day he is a fan of Michigan basketball BECAUSE HE WAS BORN THERE. So soil is important because it confers patriotic feelings. This is precisely why the Framers wanted soil. They wanted the President to be grounded completely by strong patriotic desire. There is only one kind of citizenship that guarantees patriotism... Natural born. Born of parent citizens on the soil of America.
This argument has gone on in numerous other threads since Cruz appeared on the scene. He is a natural born citizen as no court had to declare him a citizen as they do with naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens do not have a mother or father who is an American citizen.
My grandson born in England was a natural born citizen the day he was born due to his father, my son, being an American Citizen. No court had to make him a citizen. He was issued an American passport the day he was born, plus he had British citizenship.
If he wanted to run for certain offices in England, he would have to give up his American citizenship. If he ran for certain offices in America, he would have to give up his British citizenship. Those offices require a single allegiance to the country.
Cruz had dual citizenship, US and Canadian; he has given up his Canadian citizenship so he has allegiance only to this country.
You will find out I am correct soon after Cruz files for President.
No. We can agree that there is a difference between natural-born and naturalized citizenship. Those are the only two mentioned in the Constitution. So if you are not one then you are the other.
“Yes... But your citizenship would be retained whether you were born on base, in a foreign country, or on the moon. However, your NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP is void.”
I brought up military bases because someone said McCain was not a natural born citizen because he was born in South America, canal zone. My point there was, the American base was considered American soil. It is correct he was a natural born citizen due to one or both of his parents being citizens and that would be true no matter where he was born.
“With regard to citizenship, the earth under you when you are popped out is ALMOST meaningless.”
No, it is not. Cruz was a Canadian citizen because he was BORN ON THEIR LAND. He was also an American citizen due to his mother being American. He had dual citizenship.
OK, how about this? Parentage is 95% of the deciding factor, soil is 5%. Work for you?
If you mean social contract, that is not law.
You still refuse to cite any CONTEMPORANEOUS source (or any source other than yours say so..) while you state that the meaning at the time of the constitution is what matters.
Where as I have done so to define CITIZEN since NATURAL BORN is a subset of CITIZEN the 1828 defined by Webster stands as the correct one.
But to belabor the point
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”
1st US congress 1790
Or do you claim that you and not they are in better standing to know what NATURAL BORN CITIZEN meant at that time ?
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.