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 ...
You are way over thinking it. To be eligible for the office of the Presidency you must be born on the soil of the United States to two citizen parents. We have a lot of people that meet that requirement so there is no need to go any further. Laws of other countries cannot change a persons parents or where they were born. It's set in stone at birth. A citizen either meets this requirement or they don't.
Yep, the reason for the natural born clause is moot if all that is required is citizenship at birth. There is a difference between natural born citizen at birth and citizen at birth.
No one can answer your question, for to answer it, is to answer why natural born citizen differs from citizen at birth.
“… Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen. …”
There was a competing proposal by Hamilton, that included “born a citizen” phrase (without the word “natural”). We know which version ended up in the Constitution.
So you’d accept as POTUS-eligible a dual citizen at birth who nevertheless meets the Minor v. Happersett NBC definition.
The Constitution refers to 3 categories of Citizens. They are Citizens, Natural Born Citizens, and Naturalized Citizens. Naturalized Citizens existed only after Congress established the rules which were not in effect when the Constitution was written. The ‘naturalization’ came later.
So then what was the distinction between Citizens and Natural Born Citizens? Cruz in no way qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen. His father a Cuban and Cruz was not even born in this Country. His mother is said to have renounced her American Citizenship before he was even born. She voted in Canadian elections which requires Canadian citizenship. These are matters of public record.
Cruz is a great threat to our Constitution but for reasons impossible for me to perceive, he is revered be many. Cruz is not really eligible to be a U.S. Senator as he was a citizen of Canada until 2014. Senators are required to be American Citizens for 9 years. He still does not meet that qualification. (See Article 1 Section 3.)
Cruz realizes these things more than you do or most others.
I don’t know what definition this court case determined but it’s really irrelevant. Logic tells us the existence of the NBC qualification alone mandates that NBC be defined as a person born on the soil to two citizen parents. If that qualification is met there is no way a person could be born a duel citizen by birth.
This is a good example of why reading court cases is not the best way to look for answers to questions of logic as they often don’t run together. This is my criticism of the great Mark Levin. In my opinion he did way too much reading and not enough thinking on this issue.
Minor v. Happersett declares that nobody has ever questioned the citizenship of individuals born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.
I am adding to this formula the following: Citizenship in the country of, say, Luxembourg, bestowed at birth via a new Luxembougian naturalization law, with no further action that need be taken by the child or its parents other than the seasonable presentation of proof that at least one grandparent of the child is or was a citizen of Luxembourg.
PS...walk the mile with me. Why so skittish?
Please. Focus. Kindly answer this question based on the foregoing hypothetical.
Is the dual citizen child in question an NBC, or no?
It is not okay with the RATs and the media and never will be.
Just another example of "experts" being wrong.
Clearly you have never studied this issue with any degree of seriousness. For example, can you name me the most significant Supreme Court decision on the issue of Birth Citizenship?
No he doesn't.
I'm not sure if you realize it or not but you are using the exact same twisted logic that liberals use about birth not determining gender. Gender is set in stone at birth and no law or argument can change that. You are trying to say that some law in luxumstan somehow changes the physical place of ones birth and or the parents to which they were born and that's simply impossible. Natural born status like gender is set in stone at birth and no law or twisted liberal thinking can change those facts. You can't be born in more than one place and you can't have more than two parents.
It's like saying a man in the United States is also a woman because a law in Electroluxumstan says so. So a NBC of the United states by definition cannot also be a citizen by birth of another country. You are either a Natural born citizen or you are not.
I used to believe the stupid birther argument against Cruz like you do, but after researching it I found out people in their underwear in their basement using a Google were misleading everyone and Mark was right after all. See below.
Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, was an American citizen when she gave birth to Cruz, and is, in fact, Cruz’s mother. Seems fairly simple. Not only that, American citizens give birth to American citizens, whether here or abroad. That’s not only common sense, it is the law. And think about it for a moment — if you follow their stupid argument, babies born of American citizens serving abroad in our military would be non-naturalized citizens ineligible to run for president. That’s stupid.
So you are basing your opinion on finding out about people in underwear in their basements? I don't think that is a very good basis for an informed opinion.
Me? I read historical documents. I found out information I did not know, and i've traced the origin of the meaning "natural born citizen" farther back then most people are aware of.
I know how the current confusion came about, and I can tell you exactly who is responsible for it, and why he sowed this confusion.
Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, was an American citizen when she gave birth to Cruz, and is, in fact, Cruz’s mother. Seems fairly simple.
Cruz's mother is an American citizen. That is a fact. Now tell me when congress made it legal for women to pass on citizenship to children born in foreign countries? Show me you know what you are talking about.
And think about it for a moment — if you follow their stupid argument, babies born of American citizens serving abroad in our military would be non-naturalized citizens ineligible to run for president.
That is incorrect. The source of "natural born citizen" articulates a very specific exemption for children of soldiers serving their country on the seas and in other nations.
“I’m not sure if you realize it or not”
I could say something similar about you.
Yes or no? Why won’t you hazard an answer?
Countries can bestow citizenship on whomever they wish by domestic law. By now you must realize that even a Constitutionally sound NBC can end up being a dual citizen without intending it to happen.
Now, natural law, Law of Nations, international law, that’s a different story. One country will typically tend to have a dominant claim on the hide of a particular individual, say, for example, for purpose of obligatory military service. So there’s citizenship, and then there’s CITIZENSHIP. Luxembourg’s claim on the hide of the child in question is, naturally, pitifully weak. The U.S.’s claim, by contrast, is, also naturally, irresistibly strong by virtue of the impossible-to-defeat NBC definition. In a hypothetical international judicial forum, the U.S. would prevail, hands down.
Natural Born Citizen means, for example, that Luxembourg can’t get very far with a campaign to impress the individual in question and other similarly situated individuals off a U.S.-flagged merchant ships to supply crews for their seamen-starved man-of-war battleships, to pull an obscure example out of history. The U.S. if it chooses to do so would be well within its rights to haul Luxembourg before a Law of Nations international judicial tribunal and go about keelhauling its tiny, landlocked ass as a remedy against such wrongdoing.
I’ve heard this “dual citizenship” angle bandied about for years. It’s okay for what its worth, but it’s one or two levels too shallow to shed adequate light on the more complex NBC issue. Further elaboration is necessary which is what I’ve been trying to do with you. Without willing cooperation on your part, sadly. Sort of like what happened with Mark Levin on his book tour in 2013. Not that you’ve done anything wrong at all, but Mark Levin came out of that exchange with egg on his face after multiple on-air attempts to justify his weak position. He ended up looking for sll the world like an indiscriminate Cruz supporter with inadequate respect for the U.S. Constitution (willing to twist its language or ignore its obvious import to benefit a non-NBC friend).
I have argued this myself. Obama is likely not even a citizen much less a natural born citizen.
conservative98, surely you realize that if Ted Cruz were born in Cuba to his U.S. citizen mother, and his dad Rafael instead of being an emigree never left Cuba but instead had been holding increasingly important bureaucratic posts in Castro’s dictatorial government, the U.S.’s claim on the hide of young Ted would be pretty darn weak as opposed to Cuba’s.
In truth, in today’s world, Ted’s birth circumstances would probably cause him to fall into the specific respective formulae naturalization statures both in the U.S. AND in Cuba, such that, strictly speaking, he would be a Natural Born Citizen of NEITHER country.
As it is, Cruz is equivalently Cuban AND American based on the circumstances of his birth, with Canada getting the bronze medal.
That said, there are in this country nuthatches that believe that mere birth on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizens makes one an NBC, hello President Nidal Hamda, or Hamza is it? (The terrorist whose freakshow parents established a beachhead here for purposes of that killer’s birth, and then split), and, of course, now President Harris!
“And think about it for a moment — if you follow their stupid argument, babies born of American citizens serving abroad in our military would be non-naturalized citizens ineligible to run for president.”
Just as Obama wasn’t, McCain was also never POTUS eligible (there was a Mutually Assured Destruction policy in place with respect to both major political parties at the time on the NBC issue), He was flat out born in a municipal hospital in the nearby port city in Panama. There were no medical facilities or hospitals on any U.S. military facilities in or near the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth set up to receive pregnant women and deliver their babies. Regardless, he would have failed the Born on U.S. Soil requirement of the NBC test whether he were born on a U.S. military base, born in the PCZ, or otherwise. We weren’t at war in the region (invading army exception) and his father wasn’t a U.S. Ambassador (diplomatic exception).
Once again the train has left the station and you ain't on it. It takes TWO citizen parents PLUS being born on the soil to ensure allegiance to the United States. Did you not read the post that said according to your definition the king of England could have fathered a child with an American women and that child would be eligible to be President of the United States? How do you reconcile that fact with your logic? Do you think that's what the founders intended? I know that sounds silly but that is EXACTLY what you are saying. What about any American man traveling abroad to China who fathers a child with a women in China? The child having never even been to the US would be a natural born citizen according to your definition or do you think only women produce natural born citizens? If that's the case you are really really in the weeds with your logic.
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.