Is Cruz Eligible?

[tarheelbybirth]

IMO the founding fathers meant for there to be a higher level of "citizenship" established for someone running for POTUS than someone establishing simple citizenship. If that is the case I am in complete agreement with our founding fathers.

For all the people who say YES just because his mother was a US citizen think about this. I'm assuming you are also saying YES to a situation where a female US "freedom fighter" who is a US citizen leaves the country to become a freedom fighter and becomes impregnated by a foreign ISIS terrorist. Under your idea their offspring would be eligible to run for the POTUS.

IDK about you but I'm not ok with that thought. Cruz? No thank you.

What about a mother who travels to Canada and delivers prematurely. That accident forever bars her child from serving as president? That's ridiculous. A child born to a "freedom fighter" is going to have some serious baggage to overcome in order to serve as president but why bar them? Sins of the mother?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

who cares? all that matters is if jeb is eligible

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I don't believe Cruz qualifies under the common understanding of that requirement for most of US history. So I answered the poll "no."

However, I think we should disregard stupid parts of the constitution, and this is one such stupid part. So I would let Cruz run even though he doesn't really meet that requirement.

That's what the amending process does. Use it.

 

[ghost80]

What about a mother who travels to Canada and delivers prematurely. That accident forever bars her child from serving as president? That's ridiculous. A child born to a "freedom fighter" is going to have some serious baggage to overcome in order to serve as president but why bar them? Sins of the mother?

......like all the serious baggage Trump had and continues to accumulate?????

Only exception I would make is the situation where the mother is in a foreign country directly serving (or spouse is directly serving) the US government. IE: military, diplomatic corp, ect.

Having US citizen parents privately working on foreign soil? Nope. The kid would be a US citizen but not eligible to be POTUS. Same would go for your premee in Canada. Sucks but for whatever other reason they are there a legal line needs to be drawn.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)

And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

This is the only time the term has ever been used in legislation and this was passed by basically the same men who approved the Constitution. The legislation was replaced five years later and the term was dropped...

...and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

...but it seems clear that the founders considered these children to have full citizenship.

That's a law. It says foreign born kids of citizens shall be considered as natural born Citizens. That's the key.

Good argument but that's law, not part of the constitution. If it were still in place would be constitutional under Congress' power to establish the rules of naturalization. But it isn't part of the constitution.

Now I have argued that being naturalized makes you a natural born citizen. I mean, what else would "naturalization" mean? But nobody seems to agree with that. They don't want Arnie to be able to run, I guess.

So if being naturalized doesn't make you "natural born" when it comes to eligibility to run for president - even if it does for everything else - then why would the law you cite be any different? It's only a law, after all, not an amendment.

I don't mind if you take that law as the sense of the legislators at that time that the constitution should have made that clear. But the constitution did NOT make that clear. In fact, the law basically proves that the constitution didn't make that clear. Why else would they have thought a law was needed?

 

[JordanChase]

I'm for anything that prevents a whackjob like Ted Cruz from every becoming POTUS.

Draft the bill and I'll vote for it, create the petition and I'll sign it.

 

[TJ8869]

For all the people who say YES just because his mother was a US citizen think about this. I'm assuming you are also saying YES to a situation where a female US "freedom fighter" who is a US citizen leaves the country to become a freedom fighter and becomes impregnated by a foreign ISIS terrorist. Under your idea their offspring would be eligible to run for the POTUS.

IDK about you but I'm not ok with that thought. Cruz? No thank you.

Ass/u/me

You're completely wrong about the offspring of an American-born ISIS fighter being eligible for American citizenship. Ignoring for a moment the obvious point that the child of an ISIS fighter would never even come close to garnering enough support to make a serious run for POTUS, the mother would have lost her U.S. citizenship when she joined ISIS and took up arms against America, as provided by Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III of the U.S. Code.

But even if your ridiculous scenario was true, let's take a peek at the other side of the reductio ad absurdum coin. Some people, mostly Democrats, believe that everyone born on American soil is automatically an American citizen, even if the mother entered the country illegally. With that in mind, and using your ISIS scenario as a blueprint, imagine that Mexican drug kingpin El Chapo impregnated one of his mistresses. And let's say that the mother, a Mexican national, decides to sneak into the United States illegally to give birth to this child. El Chapo's love child is born in a Texas hospital, making him/her an automatic U.S. citizen by virtue of being born on American soil and making him/her eligible to be POTUS some day.

Why do you want the bastard child of the world's most notorious drug lord to be the U.S. President? Why do you hate America?

 

[TJ8869]

I'm for anything that prevents a whackjob like Ted Cruz from every becoming POTUS.

Draft the bill and I'll vote for it, create the petition and I'll sign it.

I'm for the law applying equally to everyone, even the candidates I don't like. But maybe I'm just a dreamer.

 

[lucas80]

My understanding of the story is that Rafael and Eleanor were computer programmers working for an oil company in Texas and they were stationed in Calgary for a few years to analyze seismic exploration data.

That's the narrative they want out in the public. Supposedly he was disenchanted with life in the US and wanted to see if things were better in Canada. When the gleam first appeared in Ted's eye to be President they decided to establish a narrative. I think Cruz is eligible, but on one thing Trump is right. Cruz should have addressed this long ago with a legal paper trail.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

That's the narrative they want out in the public. Supposedly he was disenchanted with life in the US and wanted to see if things were better in Canada. When the gleam first appeared in Ted's eye to be President they decided to establish a narrative. I think Cruz is eligible, but on one thing Trump is right. Cruz should have addressed this long ago with a legal paper trail.

they have good reason to be disenchanted with the usa, the dems tell us this repeatedly

 

[JordanChase]

I'm for the law applying equally to everyone, even the candidates I don't like. But maybe I'm just a dreamer.

Nope, the Constitution should be tailored SPECIFICALLY to prevent Cruz from ever being elected to national office.

He's that much of a raving lunatic.

 

[artradley]

That's a law. It says foreign born kids of citizens shall be considered as natural born Citizens. That's the key.

Good argument but that's law, not part of the constitution. If it were still in place would be constitutional under Congress' power to establish the rules of naturalization. But it isn't part of the constitution.

Now I have argued that being naturalized makes you a natural born citizen. I mean, what else would "naturalization" mean? But nobody seems to agree with that. They don't want Arnie to be able to run, I guess.

So if being naturalized doesn't make you "natural born" when it comes to eligibility to run for president - even if it does for everything else - then why would the law you cite be any different? It's only a law, after all, not an amendment.

I don't mind if you take that law as the sense of the legislators at that time that the constitution should have made that clear. But the constitution did NOT make that clear. In fact, the law basically proves that the constitution didn't make that clear. Why else would they have thought a law was needed?

I am very confused by your reasoning. The constitution does not specifically define the term "natural born citizen", so your contention is that we must gleem the meaning from "common law". Leaving you willing to refer to any vague 17th century evidence which indirectly might apply, while insisting that any contemporary legislation directly addressing the issue should be ignored.

That just doesn't make sense.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Please let him get the nomination.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ass/u/me

...the mother would have lost her U.S. citizenship when she joined ISIS and took up arms against America, as provided by Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III of the U.S. Code.

Sim/plis/tic.

Except maybe she didn't take up arms against America. Maybe she took up arms against Assad. Or against Shia.

Throughout history we've had people leave the US to fight other wars, on one side or another. In the Spanish Civil War, for example. They weren't fighting against America, even if America at some point took sides. If/when they actually fight against America, that changes. But if that isn't why they are there and they don't engage our forces, then what?

 

[TJ8869]

Sim/plis/tic.

Except maybe she didn't take up arms against America. Maybe she took up arms against Assad. Or against Shia.

Throughout history we've had people leave the US to fight other wars, on one side or another. In the Spanish Civil War, for example. They weren't fighting against America, even if America at some point took sides. If/when they actually fight against America, that changes. But if that isn't why they are there and they don't engage our forces, then what?

Even if the mother didn't directly take up arms against the United States, you could argue that she would still lose her citizenship for joining a known terrorist group in ISIS. Wasn't that the justification Obama used for the targeted killing of two Americans in Yemen who had joined al-Qaeda? Or am I remembering that wrong? Also, you didn't address the other part of my post. Do you support El Chapo's bastard son's right to run for POTUS?