Skip to main content

Ted Cruz vs Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz celebrates his support from birthers
Texas Senator Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, and remains a Canadian citizen to this very day, but he is perfectly eligible to be president of the United States because as the child of on American mother, he is a natural-born citizen.

Given the right-wing's obsessions with President Obama's birthplace, this is a quirky and amusing fact, but it's no more controversial than the fact that both John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) and George Romney (born in Mexico) were born outside the United States. Put simply, if you're interested in running for president, you're a natural-born citizen if you were born on U.S. soil or if at the time of your birth both of your parents were U.S. citizens or one of them had been a citizen for at least ten years.

Note that this means that birthers were all obsessing over the wrong thing, because even if President Obama had been born in Kenya (or Mars, for that matter), he'd still be a natural-born American, because his mother was a lifelong U.S. citizen.

Of course, the birthers really don't care about pesky little things like accuracy or logic, so it's no surprise that one of their leaders, Joseph Farah, has come up with the world's worst explanation for why he has no problem with the prospects of a Ted Cruz presidential candidacy:

I don’t care because the Constitution was not written and ratified to be applied to some and not others. If no one cared about Obama’s questionable eligibility, despite his shocking lack of transparency and thin paper trail, then they have no business questioning Ted Cruz – who has released his birth certificate, renounced his Canadian citizenship and upheld every provision of the Constitution to the best of his ability throughout his life.
According to Farah, Obama's eligibility was questionable because he may have been born in Kenya. That's an insane position to hold, but to defend taking the exact opposite position with respect to Cruz by accusing your critics of hypocrisy takes a fair bit of chutzpah. The good news, I guess, is that Farah is finally on the right side of a birther question, despite his foolish rationale.

The great news, however, is that we're still talking about Ted Cruz 2016. What a gift that would be.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So basically . . . (14+ / 0-)

    . . . Canadian Ted Cruz dropped a shit-bomb on 5 years of birtherism?

    Above the clouds, what's to be found, I have to wonder - will I be around--Paul Weller

    by Above the Clouds on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:02:32 PM PST

  •  Putting is succinctly, Jed. (4+ / 0-)
  •  they stopped caring with re-election (8+ / 0-)

    The birther argument with Obama was you only can be a natural born citizen if your father was a citizen, they said since Obama's father was a foreign national he was not NBC.
    The situation is exactly the same with Cruz so I guess they surrender.

    •  they still care (8+ / 0-)

      because there is black man in the white house.  That is all there is too this.  Plain and simple.

      If they are talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger, things are different.  30% of republicans favored changing the constitution to allow him to run for president.  Orrin Hatch introduced the Equal Right to Govern Amendment back in July of 2003 allow that to happen.  Hatched called the requirement that a candidate be born in the US "is decidedly un-American".

      The amendment was allowed into committee by Arlen Specter.

      Rep. Dana Rohrabacher cast him as the savior of the republican party, saying

      Some people are talking as if a Manchurian Candidate could emerge and take over
      .

      So in 2003 there were many republicans who actively supported the idea that a foreign born immigrant naturalized citizen could become president, even if that person had dual citizenship, as long as that person Aryan.

    •  logic and reasoning? (0+ / 0-)

      Find a tea party  person with logic and reasoning abilities and you have yourself  not a tea party person.

  •  'raises hand' Um...sir? DID Ted Cruz renounce (18+ / 0-)

    His Canadian citizenship? If I remember correctly, he still hasn't done so...and is still officially Canuck Cruz.

    "Do you suppose actually SEEING the candidate eat the rat could cost us the election?" - Republican campaign manager

    by Fordmandalay on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:12:22 PM PST

  •  You can't argue or "debate" with these (10+ / 0-)

    twisted fools, whether birthers, or Cruzers, or gun nuts, or
    denialists. You outnumber them.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:14:14 PM PST

  •  Cruz / Santorum 2016 (10+ / 0-)

    Because there's no bottom to that barrel.

    I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:20:43 PM PST

  •  Too Bad He's Ashamed Of Canadian Citizenship! (4+ / 0-)
  •  Just waiting to hear the new theory (6+ / 0-)

    Thanks for this update on how the tea partiers plan to handle the Cruz problem.

    I knew in my heart that somebody would come up with something hare-brained enough to explain why one man--the one they hate, whom they are sure was born in Kenya to an American mother and non-American father--cannot possibly be eligible to serve as president, while the man they love is eligible, despite being born in Canada to an American mother and non-American father.

    I just thought it would be a little more hare-brained than the argument that since you people got your foreign-born president, you owe us our foreign-born president.

    I thought it would be like the theories that Taitz comes up with, like her theory that the law says that a child's father must be an American citizen for the child to be a citizen--even if the child is born in the U.S.

  •  Actually, if the Pres was born in Kenya, when he (5+ / 0-)

    was born, to a woman his mother's age, who had spent that much time away from US soil, according to the law at that time (the only law that matters, in this case), he would not be a natural-born citizen. Weird, but true.

    There have been several different rulings on who is a natural-born citizen by parentage rather than geography. Attorney Gen. Edward Bates (Lincoln admin) felt that Lynch v Clark had established natural-born citizenship by virtue of birth on American soil (jus soli) as rather absolute.

    "Birthright" citizenship, such as our President holds, is not absolute. "From 1940 until 1978, a child born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but had only one U.S. citizen parent had to fulfill a "retention requirement" of residing, or being physically present, in the United States or its outlying possessions for a certain number of years before reaching a specified age."  

    http://tinyurl.com/...

    (I apologize for the use of Wikipedia as a source, but it states the case clearly and succinctly.)

    All to say, yes the birther is completely wrong about Sen. Cruz and has been proven to be wrong about the President. But they are different cases under the law, which this character doesn't seem to get. Fortunately.

    The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

    by bubbajim on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:33:40 PM PST

    •  I hate these arguments (13+ / 0-)

      Because Obama was BORN IN HAWAII. There is no disputing this and even trying to apply logic to the birther nonsense is just us accepting their framing of the subject. Which is bullshit. BECAUSE OBAMA WAS BORN IN THE U.S.! The wingnuts trying to get us to argue the subject are trying to make us buy their frame on it too.

      Frankly, Jed never should have posted this article.

      Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

      by Matt Z on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:52:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  True (3+ / 0-)

        but this diary suggests (incorrectly) that Obama would have acquired citizenship by birth via his mother if he had been born outside the United States. The comment that you are replying to simply corrects this misinformation.

        •  We shouldn't be debating the freaks (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          judgemaggie, travelerxxx, Old Sailor

          about the logics of birtherism. We should be marginalizing them. Any and all debates on the subject gives legitimacy to their "argument" and gains us nothing. Anytime someone tries to bring up Obama's birth certificate our response should be "You're a wacko and an idiot." That's the only response these nimrods deserve.

          Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

          by Matt Z on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 05:47:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You seem to be objecting to the correction (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            of a factual inaccuracy. I don't see the point to that, sorry.

            •  That's about right but not entirely. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm saying that we shouldn't even be having this argument at all and parsing true and false statements is a part of it. Even talking about the logic of this hurts our cause even when we are correcting factual inaccuracies. There is literally nothing good that can come from debating birtherism. It's looniness and even giving those idiots the time of day just tells them that we are willing to debate them on a total lie. They are liars and racists and idiots. And we should just be straight up telling them that instead of trying to poke logical holes in their "theories". Doing so is letting them dictate the terms of debate. Which is something we should NEVER let them do. Once you're explaining, you're losing.

              Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

              by Matt Z on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:42:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Our immigration laws have changed over the (8+ / 0-)

      years. However,

      "Birthright" citizenship, such as our President holds, is not absolute.
      is not an accurate statement. Our President is a citizen by virtue of jus solí.

      Cruz, OTOH, was born in Canada to a US citizen. In order for him to be a US citizen, his mother would have had to file paperwork with the US government requesting he be a US citizen. We don't know if that paperwork was filed. So perhaps the delay in renouncing his Canadian citizenship is because he needs to straighten up any problems with his US citizenship first.

      •  Precisely (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HappyinNM, Grubdnikk, mmacdDE

        I think Cruz needs to show the birth certificate issued by the State Department pursuant to his mother's filing the proper papers.
        Barry Goldwater and John McCain were both born in territories under US jurisdiction, which accounts for their being considered natural-born citizens.
        Obama could have had both parents be non-citizens but would still have been eligible by virtue of his birth in Hawaii because of a Supreme Court decision in 1898 (the Wong Kim Ark case).
        The cases of these four men are different.

      •  Consular report not required (0+ / 0-)

        to "be" a US citizen.  It would have been required to get a passport in Canada, but it probably was not a big deal for a child to cross into the US from Canada back whenever the Cruz family did it.

        I'm sure that report would be handy to have as an adult, but a person can provide other evidence that they meet the requirements.

      •  You're right, of course. (0+ / 0-)

        I should have said, "'Birthright' citizenship, as The President is held to have by the birthers."

        The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

        by bubbajim on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 12:01:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Brah, da kine born in Hawai'i (0+ / 0-)

          you can make up all kine scenarios if he had been born on Mars or on the GWB would he be eligible to be President of the United States.  Brah, da Martians are laughing.

          "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

          by Uncle Moji on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 02:10:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's correct, of course the President wasn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew Lazarus

      born in Kenya, but if so, it would be a problem.  That's why he was smuggled into Hawaii by the Trilateral Commission, or somebody.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:29:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  insane (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Observerinvancouver

    A nation of immigrants should be proud to vote for a naturalized citizen for any office.  Another example of the insane thought that the constitution is a sacred document.  I would have been happy to vote for Alexander Hamilton--just wasn't old enough at the time.  Just kidding.  

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:35:57 PM PST

  •  Hey Farah, Cognitive dissonance much. (7+ / 0-)
    I don’t care because the Constitution was not written and ratified to be applied to some and not others.
    Birthers yelled loud and clear about Obama, and will be mostly silent about Cruz.

    Democrats mostly laughed at the "Birther" issue and will remain largely silent about the "Natural Born Citizen" issue should Cruz become a candidate.

    The real reason the Birthers were hysterical  about Obama and Kenya was always about hate and meanness and little to do with the "Constitution".

  •  Farah is saying "no one cared" about Obama's (4+ / 0-)

    eligibility?  I'm sure that will come as a surprise to his fellow WND / Taitz / Keyes / Corsi / Arpaio riders of the Birther Bus.

    That's some real round hole - square-peggerism there.

    Maybe we can't stop the flow of PAC money, but sure as hell can poison the well.

    by here4tehbeer on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:43:28 PM PST

  •  Typical Psycho Argues Both Sides At Once (3+ / 0-)

    For instance now Goober argue that there are no poor people because everyone has a tv and a microwave but they are also arguing that the War on Poverty is such a failure that our only hope is club the poor and toss them overboard before the lifeboat sinks.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:43:46 PM PST

  •  Regarding John McCain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HappyinNM

    Even if American soil were the only criterion he is eligible to be President.  At the time of his birth the Panama Canal Zone was US territory.

    •  Not really. (0+ / 0-)

      The Panama Canal Zone was under American control due to a long term lease. America had control, but not sovereignty over it. McCain was born in a hospital on an American military base, and was the son of an officer stationed there. McCain was a natural because both his parents were citizens. It was actually the birthers raising a stink about Obama that got the Republicans in Congress to pass a bill that made it explicit that children born to service personal at American military bases outside of the United States are natural born citizens.

      Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

      by rhonan on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 05:25:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That bill had lots and lots of Dems voting (0+ / 0-)

        for it, too, iirc.

        We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

        by Observerinvancouver on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 05:55:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That bill is unconstitutional (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        The Supreme Court already has ruled that the Congress does not have the right to amend the constitution by statute on this point (Ark vs US, 1879).

        McCain was eligible because he was natural born, ie born within the sovereign territory of the United States (Canal Zone).  Cruz is not and no congress can supersede by statute the constitution of the United States as ruled by the Supreme Court in Ark vs the United States.  Of course, the the Roberts court could attempt to rewrite the Constitution by reversing the precedent  made by a previous court as it appears eager to do when the political outcome does not suit their preference.

        •  The original constitution doesn't define it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew Lazarus

          The closest we get is the 14th amendment saying all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens.  It's not clear to me whether the explicit intent was to define natural born, though a case could be made.  I knew someone once who was oversees with her husband on extended business, but made sure she flew back to the US when she was about to give birth so her son could be born here and thus automatically a citizen.

        •  Not so says Naturalization Act of 1790 (0+ / 0-)

          In 1790 Congress said that children born abroad to American fathers were "natural born" citizens. This isn't a question of changing the Constitution by statute; this is a realization that  there was not a specific understanding of what "natural born" meant.

          Velvetfish is confusing a statement about something else (birth inside US to non-citizens) and misconstruing it as a relevant holding in Cruz’s case.

  •  Chootzpah, if you ask me. ;-D! (0+ / 0-)

    "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." -- Patti Smith

    by followyourbliss on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:49:18 PM PST

  •  Yes.. this is especially delicious (0+ / 0-)

    being that the queen of the Tea Party is in exactly the same position as was Barack Obama!

  •  Not right about Obama had he been born abroad (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HappyinNM, elmo, Observerinvancouver

    Under the law as it stood then (it has changed), Obama would not have inherited US citizenship through his mother if born abroad (e.g., in Kenya). The requirement then was that the citizen parent have resided in the United States for at least five years past age 16, which would have been impossible as Obama's mother was only 18 when he was born.

    Needless to say, this is all speculative since Hawai‘i was part of the United States, and that is where Obama was actually born.

    •  I hate to be picky, but it was 5 years after (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elmo, Andrew Lazarus

      age 14. Still wouldn't have worked. But, aloha.

    •  The requirement is a Constitutional Requirement (0+ / 0-)

      The requirement that to be eligible for office of the United States, a person must be natural born.  This is not a statutory requirement.  It is a constitutional requirement.  Although congress may pass statutes granting people citizenship, it does not have the power to amend the constitution by statute.  

      When ruling on the very point of the meaning of what constitutes a "natural born citizen", the Supreme Court in Ark vs the United States ruled that congress does not have the power to amend the constitution by statute.  If Congress wants to make Cruz eligible to be president, then it will have to pass and 3/4 of the states will have to ratify an amendment to the constitution allowing non-natural born citizens eligibility.

      •  Natural born is taken to mean birthright (0+ / 0-)

        It isn't a phrase that had a generally-accepted meaning, but its interpretation has meant at birth. Even before independence, the Anglo-American tradition granted citizenship through paternity. (The 14th Amendment added birth to non-citizens within the USA, as a way of making sure children of slaves were citizens.) Given that Cruz's father was a citizen, Cruz Jr was a citizen at birth, and therefore eligible.

        I mean, you could argue that the President can not be born by C-Section, but in context that clearly isn't the correct interpretation. There isn't an issue of amending the Constitution by statute, but what a unique phrase in the Constitution means.

  •  scrambled eggs - scorched! n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Newbie needs assistance (0+ / 0-)

    I figure some of you are around still.   I've written a diary, my first,  but cannot find how to 'publish' it.   I assume it is some easy click, but I don't see the button.
    Your help will be appreciated.   thnx

    Will trade sig line for beer or for rum and coke, if it is Friday.

    by theBreeze on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 05:17:49 PM PST

  •  Calgary Cruz bases his claim to a right ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo, mmacdDE

    ... to run for the White House not on his own birth certificate, but o his mother's birth certificate because she is allegedly American born, thus making him 'natural' born. So when it comes down to putting birth certificates on the table to prove his claim it's his mother's birth certificate that I want to see.

    •  His mother's birth certificate wouldn't do it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Grubdnikk, mmacdDE, grover

      An American born mother does not automatically transmit American citizenship to her foreign born offspring. She needs to satisfy other requirements, such as continuous residency within the U.S.

      No, Ted Cruz needs to release his Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

      http://travel.state.gov/...

      Odd that he hasn't released it, eh?

      •  Mother's Birth Certificate is Irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

        It doesn't matter what nationality a persons's parents are.  Only whether or not the person running for the office of the presidency is "natural born".  This is not a statutory requirement.  It is a constitutional requirement.

        Although Congress may grant citizenship to non-natural born persons, that is persons not born within the sovereign territory of the United States, it does not have the power to grant the status eligibility of non-natural born citizens to the office of president.  The Supreme Court in 1879 in Ark vs the United States has already ruled on this very point.  Congress does not have the power to amend the constitution by statute.  In the majority opinion in Ark vs US, the court ruled that to do so requires a constitutional amendment.  A simple statute is insufficient.

        •  Your understanding of Won Kim Ark is wrong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elmo

          I've pointed this out in two other comments already: Won Kim Ark is about birth to non-citizen parents inside the US. Your attempt to construe the decision as relating to citizen births outside the US is simply not correct.

          The Constitution's phrasing "natural born" is not otherwise defined. I suppose you could say it means no C-Sections. As far as anyone has figured out, it means "birthright", and Cruz Jr is a birthright citizen given his mother’s citizenship status.

          Various birther sites give other definitions of "natural born", especially two birthright parents, but simply put, there isn't any justification for them.

      •  She satisfies the residence req easily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missississy

        Yes, mom's birth certificate isn't enough, but a brief review of her biography suggests she lived in the USA long enough from childhood. Just her education (including college) does it. So unless you believe in a conspiracy to fake her college degree, this is all barking up the wrong tree.

        •  Yes, and it doesn't matter if the consular report (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew Lazarus

          was filed at the time of his birth.

          Though I am sure Sen. Cruz would prefer that it had been (if it was not).

        •  As Obama satisfied the citizenship requirement (0+ / 0-)

          by virtue of his birth in Hawaii. But he was still hounded until he provided proof by releasing his birth certificate (and even then, some weren't satisfied).

          My point is that Cruz has not released any evidence whatsoever of his American citizenship. He proved he is a Canadian citizen, that's all.

  •  the weight of the argument shifts further to right (0+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 05:46:23 PM PST

  •  INCORRECT. Please research. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew Lazarus, mmacdDE

    At the time of Obama's birth the law which said "child of citizen is citizen" had an age threshold in it. Obama's mother only 19. Cruz's mother was older. So there is not a comparison on that ground.

    Now, anyone who believes that two local newspapers were coerced into reporting an inaccurate record of birth in Hawaii because they wanted him eligible to be president some 48 years later is totally bonkers, and you can't argue with totally insane birthers.

    But that isn't the law.

  •   "Cruzifixation" Journey from Calgary. (0+ / 0-)

    Makes a great story for a presidential run, don't it?
    I'm thinking about starting a whole new religion based on it. The difference is that this religion will expired after the 2016 Presidential Campaign, as all true religions should.


    Closed for repairs.

    by glb3 on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 06:08:14 PM PST

  •  This article is wrong (0+ / 0-)

    The article points to a link saying effectively that Cruz is a natural born citizen by law.  However, it fails to note that the US Supreme Court in US vs Ark ruled on this very point of natural born citizenship that no law can supersede the Constitution of the United States.  The constitution is quite clear that a specific requirement is that to be eligible to be president, a candidate must be a "natural born" citizen, that is born within the sovereign territory of the United States of America.

    Although Congress may grant Mr. Cruz citizenship by law, it does not have the power to bestow upon him natural born citizenship thereby amending the Constitution by statute rather by amendment.  Sorry folks, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this one.

    •  The article is wrong about Obama but OK on Cruz (0+ / 0-)

      Your interpretation of Won Kim Ark is wrong. Won was born inside the USA, so the issue of the citizenship of a child born outside the USA to citizen parents was not before the Court, and was not ruled upon. However, Cruz Jr would have been a birthright citizen through both his parents! Even if you were to argue the case with respect to his naturalized father, his mother is unquestionably a citizen. Descent of citizenship through paternity (much, much later also maternity) was part of the Anglo-American tradition even before independence; as far as we can tell, natural-born citizenship is equivalent to birthright citizenship and not, say, vaginal vs C-Section, and Cruz Jr would have been a birthright citizen even absent the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is what incorporated the additional opportunity of becoming a citizen through birth within the national borders.

  •  Nothing we say or do should discourage Ted, ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... the Cruzer from running for President.

    Do we deserve to be so lucky?

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 06:32:58 PM PST

  •  Maybe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missississy

    "as the child of on American mother, he is a natural-born citizen. "

    If she met certain criteria.  I haven't seen that demonstrated long-form-wise.

    America, we can do better than this...

    by Randomfactor on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 07:06:16 PM PST

  •  Logic is a foreign word (0+ / 0-)

    To the teapugnicans. A is to b as c is whatever the fuck we want it to be!  Don't confuse them with common sense.

  •  No actually he is not... (0+ / 0-)

    ...a natural born citizen and I wait for the supremes to say otherwise.  But even if my position is ruled wrong by the courts I will not let the republicans hear the end of it after the way they treated Obama.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 02:18:59 AM PST

  •  Never was about birth place (0+ / 0-)

    The whole birther thing was about only one thing... Just as is the Tea Party.... We don't want no fucking Ni€€er in the White House.  End of discussion.  QED.

  •  The traditional meaning of "natural born citizen" (0+ / 0-)

    "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government" (Black's Law Dictionary).

    That would rule out Canada.

    In fact, Chester A. Arthur's political opponants argued he was ineligible to be president because he was born in  .  .  .  Canada (even though everybody accepted he had an American mother).

    There is an argument that "natural born citizen" means any person  who was a citizen at birth (for example born to Amercan parents in a foreign country).  But this definition of citizen is based on the citizenship statute as adopted by Congress, and we don't allow Congress to change the meaning of the Constitution simply by enacting statutes.    

    •  Born to citizens since about 1350 (0+ / 0-)

      Note that Chester Alan Arthur became president, which is a clue that your understanding of "Natural Born Citizen" is off.

      Birthright English citizenship for children born overseas to Englishmen was first established in the 1300s, and reiterated several times later. By the time of the Constitution, there would be no doubt that Arthur and Cruz Jr are natural born Americans (for better or worse).

      What Parliament (and later Congress) changed from time to time was whether, for example, the next generation, children born to overseas citizens who had not resided in the country, also became birthright citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790, i.e., pretty much the same people who wrote the Constitution in the first place, held that first-generation children born abroad were natural born citizens.

      One reason is that such a child was held to owe allegiance to the English crown (later, the USA), even being born overseas.

      Every court to examine the question has reached this conclusion.

  •  Not to Split Hairs... (0+ / 0-)

    ..but here's the rule for acquisition of U.S. citizenship by a child born overseas of parents only one of whom is a U.S. citizen.  There is a U.S. residency requirement for the U.S. citizen parent.

    Quote from State Department Website:

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

  •  Not to Split Hairs, But... (0+ / 0-)

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    Source:  State Dept.

  •  Not to split hairs, but... (0+ / 0-)

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    Source:  State Dept

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site