Posted on 07/18/2021 11:18:02 PM PDT by conservative98
Sen. Ted Cruz hadn’t been an official contender for the presidency of the United States for 12 hours before the questions started coming, even in the warm and welcoming cradle of a primetime interview before what should be the friendliest of conservative audiences.
“You were born in Calgary, in Canada,” FOX News host Sean Hannity asked him, glancing into the camera for an apologetic chuckle. “Is there a birth certificate issue?”
It’s a question that’s lurked around the edges of Cruz’s political profile ever since the junior senator gained enough notoriety to be mentioned as a presidential candidate. Google searches for “Ted Cruz Canadian” spiked in October 2013 as he led Republicans towards a government shutdown; the query jumped again on Monday as he announced his White House run.
And some of it is friendly fire. Donald Trump, famed skeptic of prominent pols’ citizenship paperwork, didn’t resist the urge to tweak his fellow Republican on Monday night when making his own appearance on FOX’s primetime programming.
“I hope he knows what he's doing, but I thought you had to be born in the country,” he suggested to interviewer Megyn Kelly, adding that Cruz has “one extra level of complication” because of how long he maintained dual citizenship with both the United States and our kindly neighbors to the north.
Cruz is far from the first – or even the second – White House wannabe whose birthplace has launched quizzical headlines about his fitness to inhabit the White House. Even before the Obama “birther” movement, John McCain’s eligibility was questioned because he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
Similar queries were made of Gov. George Romney (dad of Mitt and presidential contender in 1968), who was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
It might be added that he only bothered to do so after being rebuked to the face during his book tour by an individual he derisively dubbed “one guy in new jersey”.
Canadian is better than Kenyan.
Chester Arthur fudged his birth date.
Yes, but it is a moot point. Cruz ran in 2015 (the date of the article).
The dems set the bar (with the complicity of the pubbies) when they accepted Øbozo, who isn’t even human.
“Cruz, as the son of an American mother, qualifies as a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as the commander-in-chief.”
That means that king George himself could sire a child thru an American woman, and the founders would consider the son of king George eligible? And you really believe that?
Quite simply if that were true, there would be no need for a NBC clause, as citizen would do. But there is a NBC clause, and what seperates NBC from citizen, is divided loyalties at birth.
A natural born citizen can be claimed by no other country at the time of birth. Divided loyalties are exactly what the natural born clause was meant to stop. Heck why do you think the years a citizen exemption was put in? Because none at the time could satisfy the NBC.
I think he’s ineligible, and I’m generally a Cruz supporter. He’s one of my Senatecritters. Much better than the other loser.
He should stay where he is.
See what you did there! Big ups.
Chet Arthur’s father’s not being naturalized as a U.S. citizen until well after Arthur was born was not known to anyone having any conception of that combustible fact’s (potential/arguable/well-warranted...your milage may vary) impact on Arthur’s NBC status until Leo Donofrio learned of that fact in December, 2008 and promptly closed the loop with a definitive blog post.
Yes, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. So what?
Have full sympathy for the basic premise that dual citizenship points to the possibility of divided loyalties in an executive.
Strictly speaking, however, dual citizenship can’t be cited as an absolute bar to the office of POTUS.
The way I see it is this: Any country that wants to (say, as part of an effort to repopulate with potentially child-bearing young people) can pass a naturalization law that deems you a full citizen of that country solely because a GRANDPARENT of yours was born there or was a citizen there. A U.S. citizen who also finds himself in possession of citizenship in a foreign country with such a liberal naturalization law as the one just described could easily meet the strict NBC definition set forth in Minor v. Happersett (born in the United States to two U.S. Citizen parents).
Would you disqualify such a one from running for or serving as POTUS? I wouldn’t. One way to think of it is: How far would we want to go with that kind of strictness?
The way I see it, a country that uses the Minor v. Happersett definition as a local screen to ward off potential divided loyalty in the national government’s chief executive has put a full generation’s buffer between the individual in question and any potentially strong source of pluckable “Old Country” heartstrings. That would seem to be sufficient, considering how young people tend to go about their lives in any given country (and particularly in the U.S.).
Think about it. Grandparents don’t typically have any independent mojo when it comes to the minds and hearts of their grandchildren when it comes to where the same can be led in terms of national loyalty. If the intervening generation felt sufficiently strongly about their current homeland to actually make the plunge and secure U.S. citizenship prior to the birth of the grandchild in question, the issue will almost certainly have been settled before it ever even comes up. The child will surely, meaning, without any serious question, end up being a U.S. patriot, if he has any potential at all to hold or display such feelings (as most people do).
Everyone that takes your position has to cite court cases, acts of congress etc. to support a definition of NBC that does nothing to ensure allegiance to the United States. Then you have to ask why did the framers add the NBC clause if it does nothing to ensure the allegiance to the country? Why is the NBC qualification even there? Were the framers nonsensical? Of course not. So why would they have added the NBC clause when it still allows people like Obama and Harris to be President? NBC surely meant something to the framers and they clearly thought everyone else agreed with that meaning otherwise they would have defined NBC expressly. If NBC means anyone born to just one citizen parent then what is the purpose of the NBC requirement as it does nothing to ensure purity of allegiance?
Like you said yourself READ THE CONSTITUTION. It says natural born citizen. Why does it say that? I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread knows why it says that but then they want to define natural born citizen in a way that violates that purpose. That is where your position is nonsensical.
Natural born citizen means a person born on the soil to two citizen parents. This is the ONLY definition that ensures purity of allegiance by birth and thus can be the ONLY definition implied by the Constitution.
“as the son of an American mother, qualifies as a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as the commander-in-chief.”
LIE!
“as long as you have one parent who’s an American citizen – no matter where you’re born – you’re a “natural born citizen,”
LIE!
Born on US soil to TWO US citizen parentS.
It’s what the framers/founders said, It’s what the framers/founders MEANT!
The decision to use the common term “natural born citizen”, which the framers/founders understood to mean Born on US soil to TWO US citizen parentS, in retrospect today was a poor choice.
It is misunderstood by most and the framers/founders are no longer here to testify.
Bingo! and this is when I lost a lot of respect for Cruz. I did my part here in Texas to get him in the senate but then he clearly tossed the Constitution aside when it meant personal advancement.
Where?
Bingo again!
I love Levin but he is a clear example of the fact that one can actually do too much reading and not enough thinking.
Sorry but being born in a US territory is not the same as being born in another country entirely with a non-US citizen parent.
If you want to go jus sanguinis rather then jus soli you might have room to argue but not much since his father was still not a US citizen and it would not retroactive so Cruz is still out.
Personally I would go full jus sanguinis. Your parents are not citizens, neither are you.
If born outside the USA, Obama was not even US citizen at birth.
Why? His mother was 18 and too young to confer her citizenship to him. According to the naturalization law in effect in 1961, USA citizen parent had to have at least 5 years of residency in USA after the age of 14. Only then a child, born in a relationship where other parent was a foreign citizen, would be USA citizen at birth.
If born abroad, Obama had to go through the formal naturalization process in order to become a USA citizen.
Obama’s eligibility issue showed us that USA is a banana-republic when it comes to law enforcement. The emperor is naked but the vast majority of population still praises his wonderful new clothes.
Perfect!
This is why I asked the OP what is the purpose of the NBC qualification if it allows such a person to be the President? Why would the NBC qualification even be there?
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.