As we speak, multitudes of Cruz’ acquaintances, former roommates and classmates, friends, colleagues in the Senate and in the Latino community are rushing to his aid.
A Senator doesn’t have to be a “natural born citizen”, only a citizen for at least 9 years. Regardless . . . . I don’t really doubt that Cruz is a U.S. citizen, given that his birth mother appears to have been a citizen when he was born (in Canada). But you have to admit this whole charade is richly pleasurable after low-life slugs like Cruz sat on their ample backsides for years while pond scum like Trump questioned the President’s legitimacy as a “natural born citizen”.
[quote=“Epicurus, post:16, topic:31088”]
If Cruz proves that his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth and had lived in the U.S. for the requisite time, the argument is over.
[/quote
The article makes the distinction between “natural born” which means born in the USA, and “naturalized” which means born outside of the USA and made a citizen by statute. Cruz was naturalized at birth because his mother was an American. Article II requires presidents to be “natural born” and so it appears Mr. Cruz is out of luck.
“please don’t let her be a progressive.”
(x infinity)
I agree to a point because there is also a question as to whether Cruz’s mother bothered to notify the American consulate of his birth. I understand that is a requirement and to do so within a set time. So far, Cruz’s camp hasn’t come forward with any of this type of info. Now, I suppose, folks with be applying for FOI from the American consulate. With regards to how that squares with any constitutional question, I do not know. The more I read, the more unanswered pop up.
it would seem to come down to whether the appropriate form was filed for a birth of us citizen abroad and also accepted by the responsible entity (state dept?).
If he was accepted to be a US citizen at birth. this should satisfy the statutory requirement for eligibility. If no naturalization needed, then he must have been “natural born”.
if it is proven that his mom was a dual citizen(as has been reported, not necessarily confirmed), it could be said/litigated the state dept. made a mistake.
I would say it’s still too late for that argument and Cruz gets a pass.
I enjoy the topic from the “turnabout is fair play” standpoint, but I think ethnicity is still a factor here. I wouldn’t really like that generally, but Cruz is such an abhorrent person who is fine playing to racial (read:racist) fear of the TGOP base that I can’t call him a victim of anything other than Karma.
Come on. The idea that a person is ineligible to be President of the United States because their parents happened to be visiting Paris when their mom went into labor is ludicrous.
The more important point is the question of whether we are applying the same standard (without mental gymnastics) to everyone. If he was born to US citizens living in another country that is a “yes he is eligible” because we’ve allowed that on countless occasions. There may be questions about the dual and multiple citizenship, however.
The point is that many of us level-headed folks have criticized the Obama birther movement without mercy (as we should have). Let’s not make the same mistake if there is nothing to criticize here. I dislike Cruz as a person and I hate his “ethics”, but that doesn’t give us any more privilege to twist facts and definitions that have been around for centuries.
didn’t sTOP OHbuMMEr from BeING faKE KEnyaN PRESNIDENT.
Who is going to buy me a new schadenfreude meter? The gauge on mine just exploded!
That’s not quite what this professor is arguing. She is saying that a person born abroad would be a citizen and entitled to all the rights thereof, they just couldn’t be President, which has a narrower requirement. I think it’s ludicrous – I think “natural born” just means “citizen at birth” (as opposed to naturalized) – but that’s her argument.
Since “natural-born” citizenship is not defined in the Constitution it must be defined by statute.
If Cruz’ mother had been physically present in the US for at least five years prior to his birth, with at two of those years occurring after her fourteenth birthday, then Cruz’ is a natural-born citizen and thus eligible to run for the Presidency.
But, but, but, Cruz in his infinite wisdom and keen reading of the Constitution says it is "settled law."
Right. I think it stands to reason that those are the only two kinds of citizens – you were born one, or you were naturalized. I think there’s no way in the world that the Founders, many of whom were worldly people, thought that their child should be excluded from consideration as President just because they were born while their statesman parents were on a junket abroad.
I agree. If you believe in the rule of law it needs to be applied to everyone in the same way. I know that idiots like Cruz really don’t believe in the rule of law when you get down to brass tacks, but that doesn’t mean we’re allowed to change the rules because HE would do it, either.
I don’t think “naturalized at birth” is a thing. You’re naturalized by filling out forms and taking tests and stuff, whatever a country requires for non-citizens to become citizens. If Cruz is naturalized he wasn’t born a citizen of the US.
The old congress can’t amend the constitution, but 18th century British common law can argument.
Cruz: This is confusing. Why is Kenyan born Obama acceptable? Its all because he is black. This is liberal media at its worst.
“” he or she will find that 18th century English jurist William Blackstone defined the term as a “born within the dominions of the crown of England” and that U.S. founding father James Madison called birth place “the most certain criterion”"
Back in grammar school (elementary school) during the 50’s and 60’s this is how we learned being a natural born citizen. Being born within the borders of the US, or on US military bases or in a US Embassy.
That’s how we learned the criterion.