Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

The point isn’t who Congress chooses to confer citizenship upon, but their definition of natural-born. At the time of his birth, Cruz was a citizen; thus, he is a natural-born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen.


27 posted on 01/11/2016 8:39:07 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: dangus
At the time of his birth, Cruz was a citizen; thus, he is a natural-born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

Yes, some of that's true, but we don't know the rest without seeing the paperwork and timeline.

The problem is, we don't know for sure what his father's and his mother's citizenship each were when Ted was born.

If they were both Canadian citizens, then you're right that Ted Cruz would be a natural born Canadian citizen and nothing else.

What else could he be in that case?

His citizenship would be pure Canadian when he was born, the very essence of a "natural born" citizen.

Good call!

61 posted on 01/11/2016 9:30:11 AM PST by GBA (Here in the matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: dangus

The term specified—”natural born— was used in the Constitution to indicate “no conflicting loyalties”—as having a Cuban or Kenyan father might create— to draw a distinction between NBC and mere citizen by birth, like anchor babies are claimed to be.
Can an anchor baby—a “dreamer”—become Prez if they are 35?
No doubt Cruz is a citizen—but with only one American parent, no way is he an NBC, according to his own definition when interviewed while running in the Texas Senate primary.


77 posted on 01/11/2016 10:13:19 AM PST by Curmie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson