That is just great--because I am a strong Cruz fan.
Did he happen to give you a USCA citation which provides for how he got to be a U S Citizen at Birth?
There are two issues here: One, was he a citizen when he was born; and Two, was he a "Natural Born Citizen" within the meaning of Article II, Sec. 1 of the U S Constitution. Which issue are we talking about?
And we don't know all the facts with respect to the current hot issue which is citizen at birth.
What we do know is that he had a mother and father who were married to each other; that his mother was a U S Citizen; that his father was not a U S Citizen; and that Cruz himself was not born within the confines of the several states.
What we do not know is the exact date of his birth; the exact date of the birth of his mother; and the amount of time his mother was a resident of the United States after age 14.
The question of citizenship at birth turns on the citizenship statute in effect at the time he was born. I believe that statute provided that a person who was the son of a citizen mother, non-citizen father, is a citzen at birth only if the mother had resided in the United States for five years after the age of 14. That is in part based on an assumption about Kruz's birth date--the statutory perameters changed at various times in the 60's and 70's. The effective date for the amendments of the statute are in the USCA footnotes for anyone who chooses to look.
There are two further problems with the statute.
The consensus of the Constitutional Law Bar (per the Cornell Law Review article on the subject) is that the statute is unconstitutional because a father citizen's child would not have the same rights if the mother was not a citizen.
And, further, the Congressional Research Service opinion on the topic attempts to equate citizenship at birth with Natural Born Citizenship at Law. There are several reasons why that reasoning is faulty. But one of the principal reasons as one of the posters to which this is addressed infers above, may be that Congresses only power over citizenship is naturalization--thus if Congress seeks to make a person who is not a Natural Born Citizen a citizen at birth even though such person was born outside the geographical limits of the several states, such citizenship is by naturalization and not Natural Born.
Absent a naturalization proceeding (which has not happened in the case of Cruz) Cruz is a citizen only if the mother citizen statute is constitutional and his mother meets the statutory test to confer citizenship--and citizenship (for a term of years--I believe 9) is required to be eligible to hold the office of United States Senator. Both questionable.
Further, as to issue #2, Natural Born under Article I: Birth outside the United States resolves the issue against him.
We're right back to where we were years ago...what statute are you talking about? Are you talking about a statute from USC 8?
And isn't Congress' authority only related to establishing a uniform rule of naturalization?
So how can a statute written after the Constitution was written have a higher standing than the Constitution?
Eleanor Darragh, Cruzs mother, was a working-class Delaware native who studied math at Rice University. Cruz once told a tea party group that his mother refused to learn how to type, so that when men asked her to type things up for her she could say, I would love to help you out, but I dont know how to type. I guess youre going to have to use me as a computer programmer instead.
See brown deer’s post #62, it has Cruz’s birth date but lists no marriage date for his parents.
Brown deer, do you have Cruz’s parents marriage date?