“In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president. “
Puerto Ricans are citizens at birth, and naturalized.
The ‘becomes a citizen later’ is a crook of you-know-what.
If being a citizen AT birth is all you need to be then the word natural in ‘natural born Citizen’ is unnecessary. It would have sufficed to say ‘born Citizen’.
This ‘born at citizen’ = natural born Citizen is a lie. A poor one at that.
In a Constitutional Republic - if the Constitution is ignored what is left? The answer is nothing.
“If being a citizen AT birth is all you need to be then the word natural in ‘natural born Citizen’ is unnecessary. It would have sufficed to say ‘born Citizen’.”
No, English dominates that illogical conclusion.
English says a “born citizen” is a citizen that has been born. Well, no duh. Can’t be a citizen if not born. So, one would never say, “a born citizen”.
English also says since there is a “naturalized citizen”, it is proper to distinguish between the two by using the phrase “natural born citizen”.
There is nothing more to the Constitution than that.
It’s my understanding that naturalized citizens (opposed to citizens at birth) are not natural born citizens per the requirement.
Yep
Both my wife and I were born in the US. Both of my children were born in Germany while I was stationed overseas. Both of my children have US State Dept birth certificates that are headed “Record of the Birth of a US Citizen born Overseas.” It is hard for me to believe that my children are not natural born citizens.
Wasn’t Goldwater born in what was then the Az Territory?
ZOT!
With all respect for Jim’s and others opinion/choice I look askance at at the ‘so-clear’ presentation as to Cruz’s eligibility for POTUSA. I see the arguments for such like a political ‘musical chairs’ when the Constitution for me has a much simpler and defined framework for ‘natural born’ when looking at many discussions of the matter from Founding Fathers to the 1800s. What bothers me very much is that similar pro Cruz arguments would be applicable to men or women such as the Muslim sons of deposed Egyptian Muslim Morsi who were born in the USA. Either father or mother would present the same dilemma. The Constitution references ‘born’ i.e. at birth. This is not two or four years after birth. I believe from my own situation that birth is vital to allegiance and the Founders were wise to this for the future of the USA. Birth does not guarantee future allegiance but it is a vital part of one’s heritage. It is a fact that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban citizen at the time father. I also believe the USA cannot and should not relax the Constitution one iota to accommodate someone with the status of Obama.
Why are you so sure of your opinion when not one legal mind in the entire country, of any real weight, agrees with you?