The birther movement has largely been seen as a right-wing effort to prove that President Obama was ineligible to run for president, and therefore cannot be president. One of the more common arguments that the birthers use is that a candidate must be born to two U.S. citizens in the U.S., but they’re often strangely silent on the issue when it comes to talking about Ted Cruz’s possible run at the White House. One, however, has spoken up, and it’s about damn time.
Right Wing Watch reported on birther movement leader Richard Mack’s comments, where he said:
I try to say [this] to a lot of people. Ted Cruz cannot run for president of the United States. I like Ted, I’ve met him several times and he’s kind of a friend of mine, but he can’t run for president.
Well glory be, a birther is actually trying not to be a hypocrite! Sadly for us, he’s wrong, and that’s unfortunate because a Ted Cruz presidency would be one of the worst things to happen to us. But most legal scholars consider “natural born citizen” to mean “born to at least one U.S. citizen.” So the other parent can be just a legal permanent resident, or even a citizen of another country, and the child is still considered a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone can also be born on foreign soil, and considered a natural born citizen as long as one parent is a U.S. citizen, under that interpretation.
Cruz’s problem is actually different from Obama’s, because Cruz actually was born outside the U.S. He’s admitted to it, we all know it, and he’s jumped through hoops to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Obama, on the other hand, was born in the U.S., and the only “evidence” out there that he wasn’t comes from conspiracy theorists who are so sure he was born in Kenya they’ll go through all kinds of weird gyrations to “prove” it.
As the Washington Post put it:
Questions about Cruz’s eligibility have everything to do with interpretation of the law; the questions about Obama’s eligibility had everything to do with a dispute over the underlying facts — more specifically, conspiracy theories about whether the president was actually born in the United States, as he claimed, and whether he somehow forged a birth certificate that said he was born in Hawaii.
Of course, there are others in the birther movement, like Joseph Farah, who do nothing but further the idea that the whole thing is more about outrage that a black man is in the White House than it is about constitutionality. Farah is “totally fine” with Ted Cruz running for president. The Raw Story reported, earlier this year, that Farah’s problem is that people weren’t questioning Obama’s eligibility, so therefore they had no right to question Cruz’s, either. Because of that, he labeled everyone as hypocrites and decided he didn’t care if Cruz ran. Especially since Cruz is, in Farah’s words, “a bold, eloquent, charismatic, principled, committed defender of American liberty.”
Tea Party nutjob is more like it. But, if there’s one birther movement leader who is willing to stand up for actual beliefs, instead of attack Obama because he’s black and liberal, then perhaps we’ll either see the end of the birther movement soon, or we’ll actually see some real consistency from those who claim that all they want is to uphold and enforce the Constitution. In the meantime, all we can do is be thankful that their paranoid conspiracy theories haven’t actually gotten them anywhere.
John McCain was born in Panama 100 years ago!
Actually, John McCain was brought her by aliens from Mars, the ‘warrior planet’. Have you seen his birth certificate?
it’s the suckers from Mars who have us in the shape we’re in 🙂 We need some more Venusians in the mix!
Oh, so THAT’S where he found Sarah Palin!
Unfortunately he was born on a military base in panama which is us soil.
The base where his father was stationed did not have a hospital until 1941, when Johnny was 6 years old. So therefore he could not have been born on the base.
He could have been born in the mess hall on the base, or in whatever they had for first aid before the hospital. Probably an Army field hospital, just like MASH
It was probably more like a small clinic than a hospital
McCain was born in a foreign nation (Colon,Panama). He is disqualified to be President. So is Cruz and Obama,et al.
American Bases in foreign nations (Panama) are NOT US Soil, Only US Soil is US Soil.
I suggest that you read the law again. American Military bases in foreign nations are NOT Considered US Soil. McCain is NOT a Natural Born American citizen. Never has been. He is as DQ’d as Obama and Cruz,et al.
Fact is that McCain is as disqualified as Obama. Neither are Natural-Born Citizens. McCain was born in Colon, Panama which is one of the two major cities in Panama. The other is Panama City, Panama. While these two cities fell within the five mile north and five mile south parameters of the Panama Canal Zone, both major cities were EXCLUDED as part of the PCZ by virtue of the Panama Canal Zone treaty, BTW, American Military bases in foreign nations are NOT considered US Soil.
Raphael did not jump through hoops to denounce his Canadien citizenship. It took him about a year to do it after he announced he would get right on it. Canadian immigration lawyers say they’re baffled why it took Sen. Ted Cruz so long to renounce his Canadian citizenship. He says he hired lawyers to prepare the paperwork. But experts in Canada say renouncing citizenship is a simple, quick and straightforward process. There’s even an online, four-page PDF form on the Government of Canada website to initiative the process – no lawyers needed.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/why-is-it-taking-so-long-for-ted-cruz-to-renounce-his-canadian-citizenship.html/
Raphael did not jump through hoops to denounce his Canadian citizenship. It took him about a year to do it after he announced he would get right on it. Canadian immigration lawyers say they’re baffled why it took Sen. Ted Cruz so long to renounce his Canadian citizenship. He says he hired lawyers to prepare the paperwork. But experts in Canada say renouncing citizenship is a simple, quick and straightforward process. There’s even an online, four-page PDF form on the Government of Canada website to initiative the process – no lawyers needed.
http://trailblazersblog.dallas…
I read he was having difficulty establishing proof of his mother’s residency in the U.S. before he was born.
Cruz’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship doesn’t help Cruz. He was still born in Canada to a Cuban Father. That, he cannot change by any means.
so let me get this straight….Cruz was born in Canada but considered a “natural born citizen” we all know it , acknowledge it..end of discussion!! Obama was born in Hawaii i, which makes him a US citizen automatically…BUT…the accusations, the questions,the demands for proof(birth certificate) have gone on for 6 years and counting now….hummm, am I seeing a double standard here??? IMAGINE
THAT??
Yes, because he was born to at least one American parent. Does not matter where that occurred.
” by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents”….Ted Cruz only had ONE American parent…..when he was born in Canada, his mother was a U.S. citizen, but his father was a Cuban citizen, NOT an American citizen. That doesn’t sound like “U.S. citizen PARENTS……just ONE U.S. citizen parent.
Contrary to popular belief persons “born abroad” even if both Parents are Americans are NOT Natural-Born Citizens. McCain was as disqualified as Obama in 2008. The 2008 election was entirely fraudulent.
BOTH Parents of a Natural-Born Citizen MUST be Citizens themselves of the country in which the NBC is born. In other words, an NBC is one born in a country of parents who are BOTH Citizens themselves at the time of said person’s birth.
Cruz can never be a Natural-Born citizen of the USA. Neither can Obama or McCain. Neither can Jindal, Swartzenegger or Santorum. Whether people like it or not, one who is not born in the US of Parents who are both Americans themselves, at the time of said person’s birth in the USA, is NOT a Natural-Born Citizen. NOTHING that a person does later can change the circumstances of one’s birth. Cruz may have rejected his Canadian citizenship but by having done so, cannot ever change the fact that he wasn’t born in the USA, and that his father was not an American citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.
I say if they could do it to the President who WAS born on US soil I say we make as big of a stink as they did…but then I realized we’d be Republicans and I think that would put a stain on my soul forever….
Honesty is the best policy. Our founders wanted 100% Americans and no others to be Commander in Chief of our military (President). What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Frankly, I do not want someone with any foreign influence or loyalties to be President. Neither did the founding brothers. A President MUST BE 100% American, he/she MUST BE born in the United States IN ADDITION TO being born of Parents who are both
citizens themselves. It was our nation’s first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, who sought the inclusion of a Natural-Born Citizen clause in the Constitution. It was the Supreme Court in the case of Minor v Happersett that affirmed the definition of what an NBC is. That is persons who are born in the USA of parents both of whom are themselves citizens. MInor v Happersett remains current and as they say in the legal profession, “good law”.
He would have been a birther, but he didn’t want to raise the spectre of his own questionable citizenship … It’s the only war he’s ever not wanted to start! LOL
It is followed by “or a citizen at the time of adoption of this constitution”, meaning you must be born on US soil period (this account for naturalized person’s before that time), the Court will go with long standing tradition here. McCain was born on a US military base considered US territory, ain’t no Us flag flying over hospital’s in Canada!
Recheck everything. You are mistaken.
The Constitution never spells out what “natural born citizen” means. I think it was 1874 or 1875 the Supreme Court ruled that defining the term “natural born citizen” fell under the legislative branch. I’d have to look up the case reference, but that is the long standing legal tradition on this.
reverse birthers , that otta piss the tealiban off
I fought Obama on his disqualification to be POTUS. See: Laity v NY,US Supreme Court and I am going to fight Cruz on it as well as any other fraud from either party. Our Presidency is reserved for only 100% Americans, as well it should be.
Actually, the three accepted legal definitions of “natural born citizen” DO exclude Rafael (Ted’s real name) from the presidency. Those definitions are:
1: A child born on American soil regardless of the parents’ citizenship,
2: A child born in American territories regardless of the parents’ citizenship,
3: A child born to American citizen parents (BOTH) on foreign soil.
Cruz’s father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, and he was born in Canada. Therefore, the fact that his mother was an American citizen is irrelevant to his eligibility. He does not meet the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
Actually, the child only has to have one citizen parent, on the condition that the one citizen parent has lived in the US for five consecutive years at some point. So he does meet the definition… unfortunately.
The Supreme ruled that you are correct more than 50 years ago.
Not exactly. They’ve determined citizenship, but the haven’t defined “natural-born citizen” beyond what I’ve already outlined. What I wrote is the general consensus formed by lower courts over the years, but has yet to be tested by the Supreme Court.
That is exactly what it means. Natural born citizen means that you are a citizen from birth.
No, it does not. Natural-born citizen means, essentially, a citizen at birth born to citizen parents. That’s a definition that dates back long before the term was written into the Constitution and was the basis for its use.
The founders took the definition from the Law of Nations which Emerlich Vattel translated from Latin into French. In French the definition is “Les Naturels, ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont, nes de le pays de parents citoyens”. in 1776 French was the language of diplomacy. Ben Franklin ,ambassador to France,brought the French version back with him. The founders spoke French. The English translation is “The Natural born or indigenous are those born in a country of parents who are both citizens”. The word “Parents” (Parents) and the word “CItoyens” (Citizens) are both plurals. It does NOT say “Parent Citoyen” or a Citizen Parent. It says “ParentS CitoyenS” ,emphasis added, meaning both parents.
The founders weren’t the ones who wrote the clause in question, the framers of the Constitution were, and they pulled the phrase from common law, which has roots in the Law of Nations but was shaped further by other influences over time. If you’re going to make a claim knowing what the meaning of a document is, at least get your historical facts correct.
No. It doesn’t. Any anchor baby born in the USA is a citizen from birth. But anchor babies cannot be President. One must also be born of parents who are both Americans themselves.
Natural Born Citizen was “directly defined” by the US Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett. That precedent is still good law.
No, actually, it was not. The common description of what a natural-born citizen is was discussed, but not in depth because such a discussion did not apply to the case in question, and was never “directly defined” as such.
That’s true of *citizenship,* but not the claim to being a “natural-born citizen.”
I think you might be confused with naturalization.
No, naturalization is when someone has moved to the United States as a citizen of another country and *becomes* a citizen of the United States. These are three different things we’re talking about.
Babies born in a foreign nation, even if both of the baby’s parents are Americans are NOT Natural Born Citizens. They have to be naturalized under the process outlined in the Naturalization Act.
That is incorrect. What you’re referring to is citizenship, not whether or not one is a natural-born citizen. And even then, you’re still incorrect. A child born to two American parents abroad is an American citizen and requires no naturalization.
That is for Naturalization purposes of a foreign born baby and does NOT confer Natural-Born citizenship on said child.
The law is that in order to naturalize a child born in a foreign nation one of the parents has to be an American who has lived in the USA for the past year, prior to the birth of the child born on foreign soil. Furthermore, the American parent must be a citizen for at least 10 years, five of those years of which were after the age of 14.
Josh, NONE of the (3) examples you cited are “Accepted legal definitions” of what a Natural-Born Citizen is. An NBC is a 100% American he/she must meet both Jus Soli, “of the soil” and 100% Jus Sanquinis “of the blood” of Americans. One must first be born IN the United States (Jus Soli) and be born of Parents who are both Americans themselves at the time of said person’s birth (100% Jus Sanquinis). BTW, Children born on foreign soil, even to parents who are both Americans is NOT a Natural-Born American. There is only ONE definition of what an NBC is. “One born in a Country of Parents who are BOTH Citizens”.
Not a single expert on the topic agrees with you.
Consider that a person born abroad of a US citizen parent is a citizen by virtue of congressional statute. Congress only has the power to provide for naturalization, which does not make for a natural born citizen. “Citizen at birth” does not refer to timing but to circumstances of birth. When James Madison said that place of birth “is what applies in the United States” in 1789, a person born abroad of a US parent was not even born a citizen, much less a natural born citizen.
The starting point for a discussion conce rning who is a natural born citizen should be US v. Ark (1898). Read also Lynch v. Clarke (1844) (Lynch was a case in New York cited by the Supreme Court and many other US courts, including a favorable cite in Ark.) Look Tin Sing is also an important case. See also James Kent, also relied upon by the Supreme court in Ark (and elsewhere) “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance oftheir parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.” Indeed, the natural born citizen was referred to as a “native born citizen”. Ted was not born within the juridsiction of the US.
You know you’re dealing with a first-rate party hack when she reverts to this tactic of phony rhetoric- “But most legal scholars consider “natural born citizen” to mean “born to at least one U.S. citizen.” But of course, MOST real experts agree with the pablum I’m about to puke. Actually, no thinking person gives two hoots what ANYONE, but the Founders who WROTE the document at question, thinks, or thought. Both definitions you spelled out are wrong, I assume because you are incapable of being even-handed or objective. But as I’ve already said, you’re a party hack.
Wait, I thought and I do remember being taught that to be a “natural born citizen”, you have to be born on U. S. soil, not Canada or Panama.
Every time someone who isn’t Black criticizes Obama he/she is called a “Racist”. Fact is that one’s race is not a license to break the law. Obama cannot hide behind his race in order to flaut the Constitution. Besides Obama is Mullato and not just Black. In any event, both his constituent White genes and his Black genes are equally treasonous. Obama is a usurper and a fraud. He is the nation’s second usurper of the Presidency. Chester Arthur was the nation’s first usurper. Cruz wants to be the third usurper. Neither Obama,Cruz or Arthur are a Natural-Born Citizen. It is established law that a Natural-Born Citizen is not tantamount to being a mere “Citizen” or as NY State has attempted to reflect, someone “Born a Citizen”.It is incontrovertible that an NBC is “One born in a Country of Parents who are both citizens themselves”. Anyone who denies this definition is ill informed. See: Minor v Happersett, U.S. Supreme Court. Also see “There is no President Obama” by me.