Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.

The Atlantic ^ | May 2013 | DAVID A. GRAHAMMAY

[Jim Robinson]

~~snip~~ (just the facts, ma'am).

But what won't prevent Cruz from becoming president is his place of birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, while his parents were living there. His father is now an American citizen, but was not at the time; his mother, however, was born in the United States.

Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz's case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here's a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.

~~snip~~

[visually_augmented]

xzins: “Blackstone himself supported the blood-based citizenship of children born overseas to British citizens.”

I’m on the fence on this topic but there is an obvious contradiction I see in your argument.

If, as you suggest, a citizen gives birth to a child in a territory that is not native to that citizen and the resulting child maintains the nationality of the citizen parent, how does that work when the other parent is of different nationality? Especially when the other parent’s nationality is the same as the place of birth? Doesn’t this demand some priority placed upon how nationality is conferred? Perhaps the father’s nationality is of higher weight? Or the mother’s nationality (as Judaism suggests)? Or perhaps the location of birth trumps all? Is it possible that a child can be “natural born” with two different nationalities??

And as I have seen argued on these threads previously, perhaps citizen at birth can be distinguished from “natural born citizen”. Because saying someone is naturally born a dog and naturally born a cat at the same time seems ludicrous.

[ansel12]

Actually it was saying that you have some personal grudge that you carried into this thread, and so far, you have made two personal attacks on me that are strange and have nothing to do with the thread, I have no idea yet what your attacks on me are about.

My only clue is that it has something to do with some past thread where libertarianism was criticized.

[Godebert]

You might find the following link helpful in climbing down off the fence:

Minor vs. Happersett Revisited

[visually_augmented]

“You might find the following link helpful in climbing down off the fence:
Minor vs. Happersett Revisited”

---

Thanks for the link. That is interesting reading...

This issue of birth with multiple “natural born” statuses just doesn’t seem to be what the original framers intended. The primary purpose for such a natural born requirement would be to remove any question of allegiance. A person born with two nationalities would obvious have potential conflicts of interest.

Using my previous analogy, even if you could have an off-spring that is both fully cat and fully dog (which I doubt), there would certainly be confusion in the cat-dog as to which path to align. I suspect this is what the framers of our country were attempting to avoid...

[xzins]

I consider your response to be based on trying to prove a point rather than the real law we are dealing with. In other words, your argument will not get heard except by a few in a similar frame of mind, it will have no impact, it will change no current laws, it will change no processes, it will make no difference in any election, and all of those things mean it’s wrong. Couple that with the huge bulk of legal opinion, for example an article recently posted by Jim Robinson, saying your opinion is wrong, and there is no reason for anyone to grant it any credibility whatsoever.

[jpsb]

The article Jim posted is from the Congressional research department. If true and I have no reason to doubt it, the argument is over. Cruz is eligible to me President of the Untied States. I personally thought NBC required more then just one American parent, but apparently not. I would suggest taking the issue up and looking into tightening the definition during Cruz’s second term.

[DoodleDawg]

It makes perfect sense if you have a basic understanding of Natural Law.

You're basing your entire arguement on a concept of "Natural Law" that can mean whatever you want it to mean. That's what makes no sense.

[xzins]

What matters is our law and that’s our law and it has been since the very first Congress. The children Born overseas even to one parent are born citizens. It’s been that way since the first Congress this nation ever had under This constitution

[Godebert]

"The article Jim posted is from the Congressional research department. If true and I have no reason to doubt it, the argument is over."

Some liberal lawyer (Jack Maskell) employed by the federal government says Obama is legit. No reason to doubt it?

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE ATTEMPTS, ONCE AGAIN, TO DISMISS OBAMA'S INELIGIBLE PLURALITY

[Nero Germanicus]

I wish that the term “natural law” appeared in the actual text of the Constitution. Instead the Constitution states that: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”—Article VI, Clause 2

[Fledermaus]

I sympathize. When I’m asked “where are you from ?” it’s hard to answer. I was concieved in CA, born in GA at Ft. Benning while dad was in the army, lived to 11 in CA and then moved to AR where I graduated high school and went to the U of Ark. Moved around after I got married and have been living in TN for the last 25 years.

[xzins]

If Obama was not born overseas, then Obama IS legit. There is no doubt his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. The only issue is her age IF she were overseas when she gave birth.

NO ONE has ever been able to PROVE he wasn’t born in the USA, in Hawaii.

[xzins]

Yes, good point. In the relevant section of the Constitution it does not include Natural Law as part of the supreme law of the land. Nor does it include British Common Law. What it does include:

Constitution
Laws made under the Constitution
Treaties

[Godebert]

The constitution actually mentions the “Law of Nations”. See Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States.

Benjamin Franklin agrees:

[xzins]

Benjamin Franklin also used the Bible, but you will note that it, too, is not included in that list of the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution
Laws passed by Congress
Treaties

Those are the 3 that comprise our supreme law.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that our Founders read many books. That doesn’t make those books the supreme law of the land.

[Nero Germanicus]

“The law of nations” was the 18th century term for what we call today “international law.”

[Nero Germanicus]

James Madison, the Founding Father, the primary Framer and the 4th President of the United States had obviously read the Swiss law philosopher, Emmerich de Vattel, but his thoughts went in another direction.

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

[visually_augmented]

NG: “Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

This statement you quote from Madison would not appear to be in Cruz’s favor having been born in Canada...

xzins:”The Constitution; Laws passed by Congress; Treaties.
Those are the 3 that comprise our supreme law.”

I think it would be questionable and shortsighted to say that only actual text of documents can be used to interpret said documents. Especially for terms such as “natural born citizen” that are not specifically defined in these documents. This leaves the interpreter only two options:
1.Make up your own definition - this is a popular approach for many of the liberal judges that sit on the bench today.
2. Rely upon source documents contemporary with the writing of the above three documents. For example, word usage has evolved over the last 240 years and hence we would be wise to use the definitions that were in force at the time these were authored.

Besides making the statement that “Laws are laws” - if that were true we wouldn’t need judges nor lawyers! How to interpret the law is the primary purpose for this thread (I hope). Besides we know from many, many examples that judgments of fallible man are sometime inconsistent and often outright wrong...

[xzins]

However, when it comes down to it the text of the law is what is the law. Any source from which one derives an opinion will always be only a source.

So, the expression “natural born citizen” will remain undefined in the Constitution, and the Congress will remain the body empowered to have it mean what they decide it means. As they have done since 1790.

[Nero Germanicus]

Ted Cruz’s mother being a natural born citizen of the state of Delaware impacts Madison’s view of “...sometimes from parentage.”
The third requirement of presidential eligibility (14 years residence in the United States) which accompanies natural born citizen and age 35, was put in the Constitution to allow foreigners who had shed their blood in support of the Revolution to achieve the highest office after many years of proven American citizenship.
What the Framers were concerned about was Englishmen coming to America and trying to reestablish a monarchy here in tbe immediate aftermath of the Revolution.
The first Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.

In my humble opinion, Senator Cruz is on solid Constituional footing.