No question Ted Cruz is eligible to be president

The Bryan-College Station Eagle ^ | January 10, 2016 | The Editorial Board

[Godebert]

Do you NOT believe that the AMENDMENTS TO the Constitution, ARE part of the Constitution, AND JUST AS VALID AS the Constition ?

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

[Cboldt]

If Obama was born in the US, his citizenship at birth didn't depend on a statute. See 14th amendment.

If Obama was born abroad of a citizen mother and an alien father, his citizenship depends on a statute. The statute describes the circumstances of birth that create citizenship. The circumstances of Obama's birth don't satisfy the statute in effect at the time Obama was born.

I don't know why people think that matters either. Congress can (and has) retroactively changed the citizenship law. Congress could pass a law that has the effect of making a hypothetical Kenyan-born Obama a citizen at birth without a naturalization process, and that would make Obama a NBC even if he was born in Kenya.

The circumstances of Cruxz's birth abroad to a citizen mother and alien father satisfy the statute in effect at the time Cruz was born.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG AGAIN !

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.

... What happened next ...

The 1790 act mentioned nothing about the attitudes of new citizens toward government policy in the new democracy.
Soon after the 1790 act was passed, however, politics became an important consideration in giving immigrants the right to vote.
During the two terms of the nation's first president, George Washington (1732-1799; served 1789-97), two distinct political parties had begun to emerge.
... One party, led by Washington's successor, John Adams (1797-1801; served 1797-1801), was known as the Federalists.
The Federalist Party included Washington, Adams, and the nation's first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755-1804).
The Federalists supported a strong central (federal) government and were generally sympathetic to the interests of merchants in the cities.
An opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists (also called the Democratic-Republicans), were led by the country's third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826; served 1801-9).
The Anti-Federalists opposed giving the federal government more power than was absolutely needed.

In January 1795, the act of 1790 was repealed and replaced by another law.
The new law required immigrants to wait five years (instead of two) to become a citizen
and to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen three years before becoming naturalized.
An immigrant who failed to make the declaration might have to wait more than five years after arrival in the United States to become a voter.
The 1795 law also required naturalized citizens to renounce any noble titles they might hold (such as "duke" or "countess")
and to promise not to be loyal to any foreign king or queen.
These measures were intended to ensure that new citizens would not secretly want to restore a king and an aristocracy, or individuals who inherit great wealth and special political privileges.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law were restored except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

For More Information

Books

Franklin, Frank G. The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States. New York: Arno Press, 1969.

Jasper, Margaret C. The Law of Immigration. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 2000.

LeMay, Michael, and Elliot Robert Barkan, eds. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Periodicals

DeConcini, Christina, Jeanine S. Piller, and Margaret Fisher. "The Changing Face of Immigration Law." Social Education (November-December 1998): p. 462.

Web Sites

History, Genealogy and Education, U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/ (accessed on January 22, 2004).

[Abby4116]

Just my 2 cents, but even if the framers only meant one parent a citizen to a child born on foreign soil, it never would have been only the mother. Women were citizens but for all practical purposes a secondary class of citizen (they could not vote). The father’s citizenship would have determined the citizenship status of the child.

[Cboldt]

-- I do not think he will endure the coming barrage that will come down over his natural born status. --

Sure he will. Legal decisions aren't necessarily based on law, they can be based on expediency and politics and appearance or sleight of hand.

The prevailing view is that NBC depends only on what Congress says it is. There are all sorts of ways for courts to duck the issue on the merits (and they will), and Congress will find Cruz to be NBC if he wins the election. So, if enough people vote for Cruz, he is (or at least will be deemed to be) an NBC.

Same happened with Obama, who, at the time of the founding would not have been an NBC. He got enough votes, he was seated, so he is deemed to be an NBC.

The only way Cruz is affected by the issue is the extent it erodes the number of votes he gets. His best approach is to keep hammering on the fact that he didn't go through a naturalization process, and he was a citizen when he was born. Obviously that makes him a natural born citizen. Keep the argument at that level, it sells.

[Cboldt]

-- So you believe a person 35 years old, conceived via IVF between a US citizen mother's egg and donated sperm by a Danish man, then embryo implanted into the womb of a woman with Pakistani citizenship but then raised by the US citizen mother married to a German citizen in Mongolia is eligible to be the President of The United States? --

Great hyypothetical. It takes two things for that person to be an NBC. Congress says so (I believe the statutes give citizenship at birth to this person), and enough people vote for the person to be president.

It's purely a political question.

[KGeorge]

You left out the part of Cruz, Sr’s history when he fought against Batista on the side of Fidel Castro. Let me guess. He didn’t know that Castro was a communist. Or maybe somebody lied to him and told him that Castro was a capitalist.

Was he pals with Che Guevara, too? Maybe Sabo could do a graphic of Cruz in Che t shirt or tattoo or something.

[SmokingJoe]

No, you are the one talking bullcrap.
What if Cruz had spent his life in Saudi Arabia huh?
That has absolutely nothing to do with natural born citizen which Cruz already gained because his mother was an American citizen, irrespective of where he was born.
Now let me ask you the same question: What if the same child was born here of two American parents, then sent to Saudi Arabia the next day and lived all his life there till he was 40. Does it make him less of a natural born citizen(which is conferred upon birth)? Nope.

[Theodore R.]

Someday, we will know for sure.

I don't think the truth will ever be revealed or at least not fully accepted. When "truth" was revealed on the accuracy of Senator Joe McCarthy's charges in the 1950s, ite covered up by the media and most historians. The American people, including those in WI, still revile the truthful McCarthy.

[SmokingJoe]

You left out the part of Cruz, Sr’s history when he fought against Batista on the side of Fidel Castro.

So now the crazy Trumpbots are backing Batista, a ruthless right wing dictator? No surprise there. Rafael Cruz should be lauded and praised (not condemned) for fighting against the corrupt, fetid, murderous Batista regime.

[KGeorge]

Hardly. There may have been no good guys in that fight, but Cruz, Sr let his alligator mouth overload his canary behind, so he ran to the US, then dumped the US for Canada.

Who paid for his schooling at UT? And there weren’t any oil companies in the US?

[SmokingJoe]

Wait a minute. You just claimed that Cruz senior supported Castro, Che Guvera and all sorts of leftists because he fought Batista(a really nasty right wing dictator).
In reality of course, Cruz senior left Cuba precisely because he was totally anti-communist and anti-Castro.
Now are casting aspersions (with zero supporting evidence) about his tuition in college?
Hey, how about we take a look at the real scandals (instead of your made up ones) of Trump's dealings with cement companies controlled by the mafia in New York just for starters?

[Kleon]

I recall people saying incessantly that a natural born citizen was “someone born on American soil to two citizen parents.”

[KGeorge]

How does it feel? Trump supporters have been putting up with the same kind of stuff for more than weeks. Don't like it, don't bring it. If he was anti Castro, why was he fighting for him? Che Guevara was working for/ with Castro- Fact. Who knows? You guys may have your heads in the clouds, but there is information out there that pretty much anyone can find. LOL Trump and every other general contractor (& others) in NYC, Boston, New Jersey, & beyond. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO IMPLY THAT HE DID/ DOES, INDEED, DEAL WITH ORGANIZED CRIME. BUT IT IS THAT COMMON. There are areas in NOLA & Houston almost as controlled.

[okie01]

Congress could pass a law tomorrow conferring citizenship on everyone born in China with the surname Smith.

Yes, they could. It is within their power...because the Constitution leaves the definition of citizenship totally up to the Congress

[EternalVigilance]

Settled law situationally applied

Again, you're being silly. The Constitution quite explicitly made provision for those the status of the presidents you mentioned. After they were all gone, the natural born requirement fully kicked in.

[EternalVigilance]

Yes, they could. It is within their power...because the Constitution leaves the definition of citizenship totally up to the Congress

It does leave the question of the requirements of mere citizenship and immigration and naturalization up to the Congress. But it didn't leave the presidential requirement up to them. You can't change the Constitution by mere statute. That requires a constitutional amendment.

[SmokingJoe]

How does it feel?

Makes me laugh actually. It's like watching a comeds with Trumpbots as the butt of jokes.

Trump supporters have been putting up with the same kind of stuff for more than weeks. Don't like it, don't bring it.

Don't bring what Trumpbot? Hey, didn't know Ted Cruz Snr was running for president. And if he was, your puerile, puny attacks would still be pathetic. Let me know when you are ready to fight.

If he was anti Castro, why was he fighting for him?

Logic 101: Fighting against Batista is NOT equal to fighting for Castro.

Che Guevara was working for/ with Castro-

Ok then. So when did Cruz senior meet, let alone fight with Guevara? Perhaps you will show us pictures of that famous meeting yes?

[South Dakota]

The 14th amendment doesn’t give you NBC status, it just means you are a citizen. You fail to post what this statue is. And why it’s OK for one and not the othrr.

My original point stands, the argument was about whether Obama was born in the US, not some statue

[KGeorge]

smh Obtuse spirit. Suit yourself.