I've seen a number of articles today about an op-ed in USA Today penned by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. These articles, like the one I linked, invariably say that Ted Cruz is a "near-certain 2016 presidential candidate." I've seen more news sources than I can count speculate about Cruz's presidential ambitions. Just Google "President Ted Cruz" for a bazillion examples.
This is incredibly confusing to me, because "Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada." Since he was born outside the US, he's arguably not a natural-born US citizen, making him ineligible to run for President under the US Constitution.
Politifact takes a different position, saying "natural born citizen" most likely means "born with US citizenship," which Cruz was. But if simply being born with US citizenship is good enough, that would mean the whole Obama birth certificate thing was completely irrelevant. Even if he had been born in Kenya, he would have been born a US citizen since his mother was a citizen. Thus, to vote for Cruz, birthers would need to completely reverse their views about what constitutes natural born citizenship.
In your view, what does it mean to be a natural-born citizen? Should Ted Cruz qualify? Is there any logically consistent way for a birther to support a Ted Cruz presidency?
The difference is in the case of Obama they wanted him to not be eligible... in the case of Cruz they do want him to be eligible. Logic need not apply.
I think the reason you're seeing this is because Canada and the US are extremely similar from a cultural perspective so even though Cruz was born in Canada it "feels" like he is a natural-born citizen of the US. Whereas there are virtually no similarities between the US and Kenya.
I think the reason you're seeing this is because Canada and the US are extremely similar from a cultural perspective so even though Cruz was born in Canada it "feels" like he is a natural-born citizen of the US. Whereas there are virtually no similarities between the US and Kenya.
Or, you know, because they're looking for any way to demonize him, regardless of the logical gaps and total lack of evidence to support their claim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
To be clear, while I have never been anything close to a birther, I always thought the request to see Obama's birth certificate was a reasonable one. I always understood "natural born citizen" to mean "born on US soil," and it seems not especially controversial that a presidential candidate should be required to prove eligibility for the office. When Obama decided to release his birth certificate, I felt that was the right thing for him to do.
Obviously there are a lot of insane birthers, but I always imagined that some fraction of them were just people like me who felt that a president should establish his qualifications for the office. So it blows me away that no one is out there shouting "Ted Cruz is ineligible to run."
I guess it's just me, then: I think Ted Cruz is ineligible to run.
Politifact takes a different position, saying "natural born citizen" most likely means "born with US citizenship," which Cruz was.
As I'm sure you're aware, the exact definition of "natural born citizen" has never been tested by the Supreme Court. But as Politifact notes, Cruz is in the same position that John McCain (born in Panama) was in 2008. And the consensus, even among the Democrats running against him, was that McCain is a natural born citizen. (For what it's worth, though, I don't think Congress actually has the authority to declare someone a "natural born citizen" by resolution, which is how the issue was supposedly put to rest.)
But if simply being born with US citizenship is good enough, that would mean the whole Obama birth certificate thing was completely irrelevant. Even if he had been born in Kenya, he would have been born a US citizen since his mother was a citizen. Thus, to vote for Cruz, birthers would need to completely reverse their views about what constitutes natural born citizenship.
One way we could try to understand the birther position charitably is by noting that Kenya, following the British model, rejects dual citizenship. However, this still doesn't quite work because the way the British model handles the cases of children like Obama is requiring that they renounce their other citizenships upon reaching majority, and considering them to have implicitly renounced their Kenyan citizenship if they don't. (Incidentally, this did actually happen even though Obama was born in Hawaii; he had Kenyan citizenship through his father no matter what, just like he'd have had American citizenship through his mother no matter what. And because Kenya was still a full-on British territory when he was born, this leads to the fascinating but useless trivia fact that Barack Obama is the last president to have been born a subject of the British Crown. What's more, that crown was on the head of Elizabeth II. The lady's old.)
The other way to charitably interpret the birther movement is that it wasn't attacking Obama's constitutional ability to be president at all, but rather his credibility. Sort of like the Swift Boat thing against John Kerry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Politifact takes a different position, saying "natural born citizen" most likely means "born with US citizenship," which Cruz was.
As I'm sure you're aware, the exact definition of "natural born citizen" has never been tested by the Supreme Court. But as Politifact notes, Cruz is in the same position that John McCain (born in Panama) was in 2008. And the consensus, even among the Democrats running against him, was that McCain is a natural born citizen. (For what it's worth, though, I don't think Congress actually has the authority to declare someone a "natural born citizen" by resolution, which is how the issue was supposedly put to rest.)
I agree that the resolution should be irrelevant. My understanding of the McCain situation is that the Panama Canal Zone was a US territory at the time, so McCain was born on US soil. He would, therefore, be eligible even under my more narrow interpretation of the Constitution.
I guess it's just me, then: I think Ted Cruz is ineligible to run.
A slave master is a slave master no matter where he was born... if the slaves hoist him into power I don't think it really matters what semantics are used.
I always understood "natural born citizen" to mean "born on US soil"...
Like I said, it's never been tested. But yours is the minority interpretation, and I rather doubt the Supreme Court would take this position if it came down to it. Might you be conflating the "natural born citizen" requirement with the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"? Because that's the only place in my layman's knowledge that citizenship and birth on U.S. soil are connected, and it certainly doesn't mean that birth on U.S. soil is the only way to be a citizen.
A slave master is a slave master no matter where he was born... if the slaves hoist him into power I don't think it really matters what semantics are used.
I guess it's just me, then: I think Ted Cruz is ineligible to run.
A slave master is a slave master no matter where he was born... if the slaves hoist him into power I don't think it really matters what semantics are used.
Huh? You're going to have to explain this to me...
I think the reason you're seeing this is because Canada and the US are extremely similar from a cultural perspective so even though Cruz was born in Canada it "feels" like he is a natural-born citizen of the US. Whereas there are virtually no similarities between the US and Kenya.
This of course feeds back into the argument whether birthers oppose Obama because they truly believe that his election was unconstitutional or because they are in fact just racist. The "natural born citizen" requirement is purely a technical, binary condition. You either are a "natural born" citizen or you are not. It does not matter whether you "feel" like a natural born citizen. Whether the country of birth is culturally similar to the US should have absolutely no bearing on the matter.
Any bither who supports Cruz for president is a hypocrite.
Like I said, it's never been tested. But yours is the minority interpretation, and I rather doubt the Supreme Court would take this position if it came down to it. Might you be conflating the "natural born citizen" requirement with the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"? Because that's the only place in my layman's knowledge that citizenship and birth on U.S. soil are connected, and it certainly doesn't mean that birth on U.S. soil is the only way to be a citizen.
I could probably be convinced to change my mind, this is not an issue I've studied carefully from a legal perspective. But it doesn't stem from confusion with the 14th Amendment, either. My thought process here is based on some simple reasoning:
1. We all know what "citizen" means.
2. We all know what "born [a] citizen" means.
3. So what does "natural" in that phrase mean? Obviously it's not referring to "naturalized" because a naturalized person was, by definition, not born a citizen. I interpret "natural," in this context, as a term meant to distinguish from "legal" (i.e. "natural rights" versus "legal rights"). The founding fathers saw an important distinction between these two things (it was such a big deal that the founders originally didn't want to include the bill of rights in the Constitution because they were afraid people would start thinking of these things as legal rights, rather than natural rights). So a "natural born citizen" is a person whose citizenship at birth is granted as if by natural right, as opposed to by operation of law. Someone born overseas to a U.S. citizen is granted citizenship by operation of law; they are a citizen because congress has written a law that says "children of U.S. citizens get the privilege of citizenship." Congress could decide that citizenship doesn't work that way anymore if it wanted to. But a person is a "natural citizen" of the country into which they are born. Arguably, one has a natural right to call the land of their birth home. They are a citizen by nature, not by operation of law.
So I interpret "natural born citizen" as "a person born in the territory of the United States." If you interpret "natural born citizen" as "born a citizen" then I think you're transgressing principles of legal interpretation by failing to give effect to the word "natural."
But it's the operation of law that causes people born on American soil to be citizens. Until the passage of the 14th Amendment, they weren't.
The 14th Amendment passage we're talking about was meant to clarify the citizenship status of slaves. I am 99% sure that white men born on U.S. soil were always considered automatic citizens.
This, of course, brings up the absurdity of someone like Thomas Jefferson championing natural rights while owning slaves, but that's a topic for another time.
The 14th Amendment passage we're talking about was meant to clarify the citizenship status of slaves. I am 99% sure that white men born on U.S. soil were always considered automatic citizens.
That's as may be, but as far as I can tell, it was always just a presumption (possibly derived from English common law) until the 14th Amendment. In any case, it can hardly be taken as a general principle when it excluded nonwhites. (It wasn't even a slave/nonslave thing; free blacks and Asians and so on were excluded too.)
Furthermore, the principle of jus soli codified in the 14th Amendment is rare globally, even among other liberal developed democracies. I don't think you can take it for granted that it's a natural right.
The 14th Amendment passage we're talking about was meant to clarify the citizenship status of slaves. I am 99% sure that white men born on U.S. soil were always considered automatic citizens.
That's as may be, but as far as I can tell, it was always just a presumption (possibly derived from English common law) until the 14th Amendment. In any case, it can hardly be taken as a general principle when it excluded nonwhites. (It wasn't even a slave/nonslave thing; free blacks and Asians and so on were excluded too.)
Furthermore, the principle of jus soli codified in the 14th Amendment is rare globally, even among other liberal developed democracies. I don't think you can take it for granted that it's a natural right.
Let's be real - everything excluded nonwhites when the Constitution was drafted. It's kind of a non sequitur to say "this wasn't a natural right because it only applied to white people."
The fact that jus soli was never codified until the 14th Amendment supports my argument. It was seen as a right that existed without the need for codification into law. It was a natural right.
But this may not be how the phrase was actually intended. As I said, I'm receptive to having my mind changed. What meaning would you ascribe to "natural" in this context?
My understanding is that if you are born to two US citizens, you are a naturally born citizen no matter where in the world you were born.
Also, is there any place that qualifies as US soil in Calgary? Those are two ways Cruz could qualify.
According to the wikipedia article, Cruz's father became a naturalized US citizen in 2005. I assume (not being very familiar with how the process works in the US, I could be wrong) that means his father was not a US citizen prior to that?
Edit: Also, just noticed that his birth name is apparently "Rafael Edward Cruz" yet he goes by the moniker "Ted". Why change his name? What is he afraid of? What else is he hiding? </sarcasm>
I'm not sure I buy that the "born on US territory and therefore possessing a natural right to citizenship" standard would count McCain as natural born. The Canal Zone wasn't viewed as a territory carrying the full weight of the constitution, and therefore McCain would not have possessed such a right. McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born to citizen parents.
A slave master is a slave master no matter where he was born... if the slaves hoist him into power I don't think it really matters what semantics are used.
Huh? You're going to have to explain this to me...
I am just saying that to me... who cares? A master is a master. We are talking about tiny details about where someone is born and whether or not being born on one piece of dirt versus another piece of dirt makes them ok to be our master.
For people saying "natural born citizen" means "born a citizen" - what does the word "natural" mean in this context? My biggest objection to the "born a citizen" position is that it simply ignores the word "natural" and gives this term no meaning at all. If you can show me you're actually imparting some importance or meaning to the word "natural," you'll probably change my mind.
For people saying "natural born citizen" means "born a citizen" - what does the word "natural" mean in this context? My biggest objection to the "born a citizen" position is that it simply ignores the word "natural" and gives this term no meaning at all. If you can show me you're actually imparting some importance or meaning to the word "natural," you'll probably change my mind.
Really I'm just reading this as a backdoor to bar president MacDuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
In your view, what does it mean to be a natural-born citizen? Should Ted Cruz qualify? Is there any logically consistent way for a birther to support a Ted Cruz presidency?
I've always considered a US citizen to be someone that was born on US soil. But I understand that it is not defined this way. Me personally, I don't think he should be able to run.
I think you will probably hear a lot of "Well Obama was President" to justify a run by Cruz. People tend to have selective memory when it's "their guy".
To take this further, what is everyones view on "Maternity tourism"? Basically when wealthy non-US citizens travel to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child on US soil. Once born, the family moves back to their home nation and raises the child there. One day, those children could technically move back to the US and run for US President. Would this go against what the founders were actually trying to stop; that is to protect the US from forgein influenc?
If the intent is to protect the US from foreign influence, I think we've got much bigger issues around, like the fact that so much of our national debt is owned by foreign countries.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is incredibly confusing to me, because "Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada." Since he was born outside the US, he's arguably not a natural-born US citizen, making him ineligible to run for President under the US Constitution.
Politifact takes a different position, saying "natural born citizen" most likely means "born with US citizenship," which Cruz was. But if simply being born with US citizenship is good enough, that would mean the whole Obama birth certificate thing was completely irrelevant. Even if he had been born in Kenya, he would have been born a US citizen since his mother was a citizen. Thus, to vote for Cruz, birthers would need to completely reverse their views about what constitutes natural born citizenship.
In your view, what does it mean to be a natural-born citizen? Should Ted Cruz qualify? Is there any logically consistent way for a birther to support a Ted Cruz presidency?
>birther
There's your problem.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Or, you know, because they're looking for any way to demonize him, regardless of the logical gaps and total lack of evidence to support their claim.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Obviously there are a lot of insane birthers, but I always imagined that some fraction of them were just people like me who felt that a president should establish his qualifications for the office. So it blows me away that no one is out there shouting "Ted Cruz is ineligible to run."
I guess it's just me, then: I think Ted Cruz is ineligible to run.
One way we could try to understand the birther position charitably is by noting that Kenya, following the British model, rejects dual citizenship. However, this still doesn't quite work because the way the British model handles the cases of children like Obama is requiring that they renounce their other citizenships upon reaching majority, and considering them to have implicitly renounced their Kenyan citizenship if they don't. (Incidentally, this did actually happen even though Obama was born in Hawaii; he had Kenyan citizenship through his father no matter what, just like he'd have had American citizenship through his mother no matter what. And because Kenya was still a full-on British territory when he was born, this leads to the fascinating but useless trivia fact that Barack Obama is the last president to have been born a subject of the British Crown. What's more, that crown was on the head of Elizabeth II. The lady's old.)
The other way to charitably interpret the birther movement is that it wasn't attacking Obama's constitutional ability to be president at all, but rather his credibility. Sort of like the Swift Boat thing against John Kerry.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree that the resolution should be irrelevant. My understanding of the McCain situation is that the Panama Canal Zone was a US territory at the time, so McCain was born on US soil. He would, therefore, be eligible even under my more narrow interpretation of the Constitution.
A slave master is a slave master no matter where he was born... if the slaves hoist him into power I don't think it really matters what semantics are used.
Like I said, it's never been tested. But yours is the minority interpretation, and I rather doubt the Supreme Court would take this position if it came down to it. Might you be conflating the "natural born citizen" requirement with the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"? Because that's the only place in my layman's knowledge that citizenship and birth on U.S. soil are connected, and it certainly doesn't mean that birth on U.S. soil is the only way to be a citizen.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Huh? You're going to have to explain this to me...
This of course feeds back into the argument whether birthers oppose Obama because they truly believe that his election was unconstitutional or because they are in fact just racist. The "natural born citizen" requirement is purely a technical, binary condition. You either are a "natural born" citizen or you are not. It does not matter whether you "feel" like a natural born citizen. Whether the country of birth is culturally similar to the US should have absolutely no bearing on the matter.
Any bither who supports Cruz for president is a hypocrite.
I could probably be convinced to change my mind, this is not an issue I've studied carefully from a legal perspective. But it doesn't stem from confusion with the 14th Amendment, either. My thought process here is based on some simple reasoning:
1. We all know what "citizen" means.
2. We all know what "born [a] citizen" means.
3. So what does "natural" in that phrase mean? Obviously it's not referring to "naturalized" because a naturalized person was, by definition, not born a citizen. I interpret "natural," in this context, as a term meant to distinguish from "legal" (i.e. "natural rights" versus "legal rights"). The founding fathers saw an important distinction between these two things (it was such a big deal that the founders originally didn't want to include the bill of rights in the Constitution because they were afraid people would start thinking of these things as legal rights, rather than natural rights). So a "natural born citizen" is a person whose citizenship at birth is granted as if by natural right, as opposed to by operation of law. Someone born overseas to a U.S. citizen is granted citizenship by operation of law; they are a citizen because congress has written a law that says "children of U.S. citizens get the privilege of citizenship." Congress could decide that citizenship doesn't work that way anymore if it wanted to. But a person is a "natural citizen" of the country into which they are born. Arguably, one has a natural right to call the land of their birth home. They are a citizen by nature, not by operation of law.
So I interpret "natural born citizen" as "a person born in the territory of the United States." If you interpret "natural born citizen" as "born a citizen" then I think you're transgressing principles of legal interpretation by failing to give effect to the word "natural."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The 14th Amendment passage we're talking about was meant to clarify the citizenship status of slaves. I am 99% sure that white men born on U.S. soil were always considered automatic citizens.
This, of course, brings up the absurdity of someone like Thomas Jefferson championing natural rights while owning slaves, but that's a topic for another time.
Furthermore, the principle of jus soli codified in the 14th Amendment is rare globally, even among other liberal developed democracies. I don't think you can take it for granted that it's a natural right.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Let's be real - everything excluded nonwhites when the Constitution was drafted. It's kind of a non sequitur to say "this wasn't a natural right because it only applied to white people."
The fact that jus soli was never codified until the 14th Amendment supports my argument. It was seen as a right that existed without the need for codification into law. It was a natural right.
But this may not be how the phrase was actually intended. As I said, I'm receptive to having my mind changed. What meaning would you ascribe to "natural" in this context?
Also, is there any place that qualifies as US soil in Calgary? Those are two ways Cruz could qualify.
According to the wikipedia article, Cruz's father became a naturalized US citizen in 2005. I assume (not being very familiar with how the process works in the US, I could be wrong) that means his father was not a US citizen prior to that?
Edit: Also, just noticed that his birth name is apparently "Rafael Edward Cruz" yet he goes by the moniker "Ted". Why change his name? What is he afraid of? What else is he hiding? </sarcasm>
I am just saying that to me... who cares? A master is a master. We are talking about tiny details about where someone is born and whether or not being born on one piece of dirt versus another piece of dirt makes them ok to be our master.
Really I'm just reading this as a backdoor to bar president MacDuff.
I've always considered a US citizen to be someone that was born on US soil. But I understand that it is not defined this way. Me personally, I don't think he should be able to run.
I think you will probably hear a lot of "Well Obama was President" to justify a run by Cruz. People tend to have selective memory when it's "their guy".
To take this further, what is everyones view on "Maternity tourism"? Basically when wealthy non-US citizens travel to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child on US soil. Once born, the family moves back to their home nation and raises the child there. One day, those children could technically move back to the US and run for US President. Would this go against what the founders were actually trying to stop; that is to protect the US from forgein influenc?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/maternity-tourism-how-chinese-couples-buy-us-citizenship-for-their-babies/
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!