TexasCHLforum.com

MotherBear wrote:My parents are both American citizens (born here, as were my grandparents and so on -- my dad and both grandfathers are/were veterans, for that matter), but my dad's engineering company sent him to work in Japan for six months and my little brother was born there. We moved back to the U.S. a few months later. By your logic he would be Japanese, but he's an American citizen with a certificate of birth abroad.

In Cruz's case there's still the question of his father's citizenship, but being born abroad in and of itself doesn't have any bearing on the issue as far as I'm aware.

No real question on his father's citizenship: he didn't become an American citizen until 2005, well after Ted was born. But under current US law, only one parent has to be a citizen at the time of birth (along with the residency requirements, of course) to automatically confir US citizenship.

baldeagle wrote:This explains the issues pretty well. I've read extensively on the subject. The natural born citizen phrase appears nowhere else in the Constitution. In my opinion, that means its meaning must be different from that of "citizen". Otherwise the words "natural born" are superfluous, and I doubt the founders put superfluous meanings in the Constitution. They argued over commas and semicolons for pete's sake.

Here is one legal analysis. Here's an article that links to some of the relevant legal decisions. Here's a Michigan Law Review article that discusses some of the legal analysis issues.

The argument is basically this: only someone born on US soil to two US citizens can be a natural born citizen. A law passed by Congress in 1790 while the authors of the Constitution were still alive extended the term to include a child born overseas to two parents that are citizens of the US so long as the child's loyalty and citizenship remains with the US.

I believe the two parent rule applies and is the correct rule. The proper way to overcome it is to amend the Constitution, not ignore its meaning. In this modern day, that means squat. The Constitution's meaning is routinely ignored, as anyone who can read can plainly see and those of us who support the 2nd Amendment are painfully aware of.

If we were following the Constitution, Ted Cruz would not be eligible to be President.

I happen to disagree. Simply put, the Constitution is completely silent on what makes one a "natural born citizen". So the issue has been left to Congress to define, and they have defined it and redefined it at various points in our history. You even acknowledge that it is within the Congressional realm by pointing to the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which was replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795, then the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was later repealed).

As it stands today, law and case law (what little there is on the subject), states that a person, born to an American citizen abroad who 1) resided within the United States at least 5 years, 2) of which at least 2 of those 5 years having been after the parent reached 14 years of age IS a "natural born citizen".

As for your statement of "so long as the child's loyalty and citizenship remains with the US", there is no indication that Cruz's was ever anything else. His family moved back to the United States when he was 4 years old. A 4 year old is unlikely in the extreme to have loyalty to anything other than mommy & daddy.

Besides, if your argument was correct, then Obama would not have been eligible as 1) only his mother was an American citizen, and 2) Hawaii was not a state at the time of his birth. Federal law declared that persons born in Hawaii before 1959 were citizens but did not confer "natural born" status on them. And yet every legal challenge to his "natural born citizen" status, including those on these grounds, have been shut down by the federal court system, SCOTUS included. Indeed, John McCain would not have been eligible either for the exact same reasons.

stevie_d_64 wrote:What exactly ha he done???

I do agree with you that he is a fantastic conservative and has voted as I would on some issues...I too would support a run for the office...

You do make a great point in that he IS a roadblock (I like that, we need more folks like him who are unconcerned about the political fallout from being an obstructionist)!!! That to me is the most significant thing he is doing...Much to the chagrin of the republican party leadership and the democrats in general...

Answered your own question.

stevie_d_64 wrote:More on the race for 2016...Notice the names...Also the rhetoric...It has already started...

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-next-la ... 00728.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously I found this after my last post...

Hmmmmm. Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul. I could get behind that ticket.

ETA: Is the death of the Republican Party really such a bad thing if it is replaced by a party that truly believes in and adheres to Constitutional principles? I'm not going to shed any tears over the loss of the GOP as it exists today. They're almost as bad as the Democrats.

anygunanywhere wrote:Let us look at this in the light of what we know of Sen. Cruz compared to the vast majority of the rest of the senators.

In his short tenure Ted has managed to accomplish as much if not more than most of the sitting scum in the senate right now. Just his presence and his wonderfeul knack of stirring the pot has instilled more pride and respect in me for a politician than I could have imagined.

So what if he has no landmark legislation named after him.

So what if he does not have the tenure or experience of any current possible candidate for POTUS.

So what if he is not accepted by the mordor on the potomac insiders.

So what?!?!?!?!?

Look how far the last GOP ticket went. I am not now impressed and neither was I the night R&R were pushed on us as the candidates to beat barry.

The rest of the scum senators are not worth a bucket of warm spit.

The current two party system don't work.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Anygunanywhere

Cruz has done more to try save our Republic in his limited time in national office than many (if not most) lifelong Republican congress critters. It's hardly his fault that he's fighting an uphill battle against both parties. The fact is that right now, about all he can do is stand as a roadblock. Democrats are actively destroying this nation, and Republicans are passively (and in some cases actively) helping them. He's been a rock and, should he run, he's got my vote.

powerboatr wrote:he was born in canada and his folks were not active duty military or working in a military or American zone, much like the canal zone of panama or in a diplomatic position.

even if his folks were working in canada for an oil company and they retained their citizenship as legal workers in Canada, he was still born there so in my little brain he is a Canadian.
did he ever become a citizen of the usa? and at what age or was it just given as his parents where us citizens at the time

just asking
i sure it would come up...but the precedent would be prove that barry is a natural born us citizen?

Military status is not a requirement. Because the COTUS is silent on what makes a "natural born citizen", Congress gets to set the rules.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:RE: Ted Cruz's citizenship situation.

His mother was an American citizen. His father emigrated from Cuba to Austin, TX in 1957 to go to UT.

He was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada while his parents were working in the oil industry.

They returned to the US when Ted was 4. He graduated from high school in Katy, TX (Houston area).

His father became a US citizen in 2005 and is a pastor in North Dallas.

Is he eligible? I don't know. Since he had an American mother, doesn't that make him an American
citizen automatically, although born in Maple Syrup Land? Does anyone know?

SIA

Yes, he's eligible. As long as at least one parent is an American citizen at the time of birth, the citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the US before the birth of the child, and at least 2 of the 5 years were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. Cruz qualifies. Now, should he run in 2016 is a totally different question.

baldeagle wrote:I am one who believes that the President's parents must both have been American citizens when the President was born.

I'm curious as to why you believe BOTH parents must have been American citizens for their child to be a natural born citizen. The Constitution is silent on the requirements, therefore it's been left up to Congress to define it.