Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[txrangerette]

Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.

"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.

[William Tell]

Windflier said: "For my part, I believe that Ted Cruz is exactly the sort of citizen the Framers had in mind when they crafted the restrictive eligibility requirements for the office of President."

Would your opinion of the suitability of Cruz change if he were only 32 years old?

Would your opinion change if NEITHER of Cruz's parents were U.S. citizens?

If the Constitutional requirement read, "must be born to two U.S. citizens", would that diminish your estimate of Cruz's suitability?

[William Tell]

SoConPubbie said: "What you think it should be ..."

What do you think it should be? I'm of the opinion that the Constitution should have the meaning that our Founders intended. If settled law disagrees with that, then settled law is wrong and should be changed.

[LonelyCon]

Cruz is eligible to be President because he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
His mother is a citizen.
That's how it works.

But only if his mother was physically present in the US for ten years - including five years after age 14 - before his birth.

Has there been a showing that this is the case for Cruz? Look, he's a great candidate and I hope he's eligible, but I still believe the Constitution must apply and every candidate must show eligibility. And just because one president broke the rules doesn't mean we can just throw out the rules forever. If anything, we need to tighten enforcement of the rules so this doesn't happen again.

Here's the actual law:

"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 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.)

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

[Go Gordon]

When he’s wearing sunglasses, I can see a definite resemblance! I always liked Roy Orbison, too

He looks like Phil Helmuth in that picture.

[yoe]

....And stop making unreasoned, hypocritical statements.

Amen!

[CodeToad]

“Has there been a showing that this is the case for Cruz?”

No proof needed as he holds a US birth certificate that is all the roof needed. That certificate is issued under law and he has one. You would need to sue, show proof otherwise, and have standing. Good luck getting standing.

As of this second, Cruz has the only document needed to prove his natural born status and that is a birth certificate issued by the US government.

[DoodleDawg]

Has there been a showing that this is the case for Cruz?

Yes. Cruz's mother was born, raised, and educated in the U.S. through the university level.

[DesertRhino]

British law don’t mean crap. The Constitution recognized three kinda of status. Alien, citizen, and natural born citizen. If you are weren’t naturalized to get citizenship, then you’re natural born.
We didn’t adopt British law wholesale, that’s a fraud to claim we did.

[noinfringers2]

What strikes me in Cruz’s statement about eligibility is that he claims such on only his mother’s citizenship. This is like saying a father has no bearing as to birth status. I don’t believe a father can be taken out of the birth status. Obama has cleverly played the system in this regard as to his eligibility. I believe the Founders as men of the world were aware of possible situations involving parentage and they intended a requirement as to both parents being eligible citizens, not a take your choice of which parent best fits your desires. That is why in cases cited it is parentS not either or.

[Mastador1]

Let’s all go beat a dead horse.

You say beat a dead horse, they say give it cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

[LonelyCon]

Great. So long has he denounces his Canadian citizenship, then, sounds like he’s good to go.

[Venturer]

Like Many of those who fought Batista he did not know what the end result would be.

Just as many who voted for Obama did not know their insurance would be canceled and their premiums raised.

We tried to tell them, but they wouldn’t listen.

I believe Ted Cruz is a good man, at least better than anything else I have seen.

[DustyMoment]

You guys trying to impugn Cruz by repeating these legal citations without actually reading the cases are looking dumber every time you post that crap.

First, Sen. Cruz is my Senator. I voted for him in the primary and I repeated that vote in the general election. So, claiming that I am trying to impugn him is false at its core.

One of the things about America that makes it exceptional is that it was founded on the rule of law, NOT the rule of man. zero has changed us into a nation that follows the rule of man by shredding the Constitution. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that, under our system of laws, Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS. Like you, I wish he were. But, if wishes were nickels, we'd all be rich! Cruz does not qualify under the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the Constitution because he was not born on American soil of two people, both of whom were American citizens at the time of his birth. That's not my opinion, that's what the Constitution requires of presidential candidates.

We all know that zero doesn't qualify under the same clause, but no one has the cajones to challenge him on it. Every court challenge against his eligibility has been dismissed because the plaintiff was found by the court to not have the standing to bring such a case to court. Should Cruz decide to run or even be elected POTUS, you know as well as I that the left will flood the courts with challenges to his eligibility and you know that they will win because the left has loaded up the courts with leftists judges.

Like it or not, my FRiends, that is the rule of law!

[wideawake]

So our Founders would have welcomed with open arms the son of the King of England as President as long as the mother was a U.S. citizen?

If the King of Great Britain had a child by an American woman, he would have been - by definition - a bastard with no claim to the throne, so yes.

Youj probably would find no greater enemy of the British monarchy.

What value is there in having one citizen parent rather than none?

The value of having one citizen parent is that it makes one a natural born citizen. Having no citizen parent makes one's citizenship a matter of geography, and likely requires a full naturalization process.

If the reason for the NBC requirement is to eliminate a chief cause of questionable loyalty, how is that accomplished if one parent is a citizen of a foreign country?

The Federalist seems less concerned with the question of loyalty due to foreign parentage and more concerned about having a standard by which any Congressman, Senator, or President on the national level would be eligible for similar offices at the state level.

[onyx]

UGH. I despise Phil Helmuth.

[Windflier]

Would your opinion....."

I'm not interested in answering your hypothetical, ill posed questions. I think Ted Cruz is one of the finest Americans sent to Congress in my lifetime, and I am honored that I had a hand in electing him.

If he runs for the White House in 2016, he's got my vote.

[CodeToad]

“I’m sorry that you don’t like the fact that, under our system of laws, Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS.”

Throw all the temper tantrums you want but no legal mind agrees with you. Not a single one.

I don’t believe any of you idiots have ever read the materials you keep passing around as you did above, yet, you keep basing your idiotic claims on the content of those posts. Yes, I called you an idiot because you ignorantly believe in something you have never read. That’s an idiot.

[CodeToad]

“That’s not my opinion, that’s what the Constitution requires of presidential candidates.”

That IS your OPINION. The Constitution says nothing of what you claim it says. You’re so stupid as to not know the difference between opinion and fact.

[William Tell]

Windflier said: "I'm not interested in answering your hypothetical, ill posed questions."

I appreciate Cruz also. I appreciate the Constitution MORE.

What is "ill posed" about asking whether your estimate of the qualities of a candidate should override the requirement of being 35 years old?

It's a pretty simple question. Either you value the protections afforded by the Constitution to the point that you will support recognizing its prohibitions or you don't.

[luvie]

Works for me! Go Cruz missile!