Posted on 06/11/2014 6:13:39 PM PDT by kingattax
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) Canada-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made good on a promise to renounce his birth country's citizenship doing so amid speculation he could make a run at the White House in 2016.
Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said Cruz's action became official May 14 and that Texas' junior senator received written confirmation at his home in Houston on Tuesday. She said the tea-party-backed Republican "is pleased to have the process finalized."
"Being a U.S. Senator representing Texas, it makes sense he should be only an American citizen," Frazier said in an email.
Cruz, 43, was born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1970, while his parents were working in the oil business there. His mother, Eleanor, is from Delaware, while his father, Rafael, is a Cuban became a U.S. citizen in 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That is an excerpt from CATO.
I did not give any definition of NBC. The Constitution does not define NBC so that could be argued indefinitely. I'm using logic.
The framers added the NBC requirement to ensure loyalty to the US. Simply having one citizen as a parent and being born on foreign soil does not logically fit the obvious intention of the framers.
Using your line of thinking a US citizen man could travel to communist china, have sex with a communist Chinese citizen and the child would still be a natural born US citizen qualified for the presidency. There is no difference in this scenario and that of Ted Cruz.
So there is no historical data that argues otherwise? Zero? Right? Wrong. It is a question, and you know it.
Anyone who ignores the information they’ve dug up is the real loser. Knowledge is a powerful weapon.
The laws and SCOTUS decisions being quoted didn't exist when the framers added the NBC requirement. Yet the intent of the framers was clearly to protect the United States by limiting the presidency to loyal Americans. Simply having one citizen parent does absolutely nothing to protect the United States from the rule of a foreign born president who could be surreptitiously loyal to another country and form of government.
I have serious doubts the framers would be ok with a person born and raised in the middle east as a Muslim under Sharia Law being qualified to be president simply because the father was a US citizen.
FYI, I'm not worried about Ted Cruz, I live in Texas and did my part in getting him elected. I'm worried about the above scenario which will happen and with grave consequences. Take our current situation as a case in point.
You are not only wrong, you’re dead wrong. I love Cruz. I would love to support him for Prez. I can’t support him in the primaries because I know this will be an issue. If he wins the nomination however I will support him wholeheartedly.
You are not only wrong, you’re dead wrong. I love Cruz. I would love to support him for Prez. I can’t support him in the primaries because I know this will be an issue. If he wins the nomination however I will support him wholeheartedly.
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.