Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
It’s a shame that Cruz does not meet the stricter definition of NBC. He’s one of the best politicians out there.
The NBC provision of the Constitution has a good purpose — to attempt to prevent some person with no loyalty, or by foreign intrigues, to become president. Obama has ruined that too.
Very nice summation. That really says it all.
Now, if the Leftist media would like to do the equivalent, and rigorously define their terms, and place people into well-understood categories, and explain to the the Man In The Street why Cruz cannot legally be president, that would be fine with me. Because any effort the Left makes against Cruz will necessarily boomerang back and hit Obama.
I say: Bring it.
Really?
When did Cruz become naturalized? When did he apply? When was the ceremony?
These are the scab pickers who robbed us of a WH victory.
Ignore them.
All we need is for "one" of the 57 states to pass a law requiring presidential candidates to post specified proof of citizenship status to be on the ballot.
We've had 5 years now. Not one such law has been passed.
It's kind of discouraging to see this kind of comment.
AFAIK, nobody is arguing that Cruz is not a US citizen. The discussion is about whether he's a "natural-born citizen."
Cruz was made a citizen by statute.
8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Bump.
Ted Cruz for Prime Minister of Canada in 2015!
Cruz was made a citizen by statute.
I asked "when?" was he naturalized.
The second item is the correct one.
There is a distinction between a ‘born citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’.
English common law usage definitions were still commonly used by colonialists and by the new United States of America at the time of drafting the US Constitution.
English common law defined at the time a born citizen was a child born on the jurisdictional soil of a subject.
English common law defined a ‘natural’ born citizen as a child born on jurisdictional soil of two parents who were both subjects (later subjects=citizens). In other words a normal family birth of two citizens on jurisdictional soil would confer ‘natural born citizen’ status on the child. Natural born citizenship was perceived to have a higher fealty to the crown or country.
We must remember that in British society there were several layers of social rank. A mere subject citizen could not be a Lord or an Earl. Only those with the required lineage could be granted royal status.
In the colonies, a child born say for example to a colonial father and an indian mother would be considered a subject but not a natural born subject.
When the Founders of the Constitution wrote ‘Natural Born Citizen’ into the requirement for eligibility for President whereas all other offices only required mere citizenship, they knew exactly what they saying.
The distinction has been lost in the noise over the centuries but is now raised as an issue because there are serious serious concerns about Obama’s loyalties. The issue has been visited in the 19th century with a ruling that confirms what I describe above. But it has also been visited by late 20th century reviews by judges that either did not take the time to trace back the meaning or did not have the staff to research it.
The issue must go to the Supreme Court who have access to hundreds of legal scholars who know the history well. The issue has not got that far yet but it must go there to sort out the meaning and its importance.
He is a citizen by birth but he is not natural born.
He is a citizen at birth by law.
8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
-
(from post #69, look at the final entry...)
How is somebody who is naturalized at birth not a "natural born citizen"?
Definition: Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth:
Jeb Bush is a NBC
Chris Cristie is a NBC
Mitt Romney is a NBC
The Supreme Court will not touch it. They will say who ever brought it does not have standing. However, I think every American living today could say they are affected by President’s actions and, for that reason, have standing.
Suggest you read Article II.
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.