Ted Cruz to run for president, but how?

[US 41]

I heard on the news today that Ted Cruz is going to announce that he's running for president. I'm confused on how he is able to do that since he was born in Calgary, Canada. Last I checked Calgary is not in the United States. I thought that in order to be president you had to be born on US soil. Can someone please explain this to me.

[bandit957]

I heard on the news today that Ted Cruz is going to announce that he's running for president. I'm confused on how he is able to do that since he was born in Calgary, Canada. Last I checked Calgary is not in the United States. I thought that in order to be president you had to be born on US soil. Can someone please explain this to me.

"Natural born citizens" can be President. This means a person must have been a citizen at the time of birth. It is possible in a few very limited circumstances for a person born on foreign soil to be a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz didn't meet the criteria though.

[corco]

Cruz's Mom was an American citizen at the time of Ted's birth. America grants citizenship at birth to children of American citizens that are born abroad, so he's a natural-born American citizen.

But yes, it's never been taken to court to settle for sure whether or not that makes one eligible to be President. I'd expect that if by some anti-miracle Ted Cruz won the presidency said court case would arise quite quickly.

[oscar]

Cruz's Mom was an American citizen at the time of Ted's birth. America grants citizenship at birth to children of American citizens that are born abroad, so he's a natural-born American citizen.

But yes, it's never been taken to court to settle for sure whether or not that makes one eligible to be President. I'd expect that if by some anti-miracle Ted Cruz won the presidency said court case would arise quite quickly.

And be dismissed quite quickly, too. The Federal courts have a lot of experience with blowing off "birther" suits (basically, holding that nobody or almost nobody has the legal right or "standing" to bring suit over the issue), without ever ruling on the merits.

For those with the perverse desire to follow batshit crazees, it will be interesting how the old "birther" crowd reacts. At least one of them has already said Marco Rubio isn't eligible, so at least give them a little credit for consistency.

[NE2]

American citizens' uteri are American soil.

[US71]

Ted Cruz is as much a US Citizen as Barack Obama is. That is all I will say.

[SteveG1988]

How about John McCain, his birth place is no longer a US territory. It's now a panamanian base.

[J N Winkler]

Ted Cruz is a natural-born US citizen, but he is a dual national because of his birth in Canada, which also means his claim to US citizenship is not double-locked (i.e., it depends solely on his mother's nationality, not--as in Obama's case--being born to a US citizen mother on US soil).

The Canadian birth will dog Cruz politically though.  Because he has access to a Canadian as well as a US passport, it is perfectly rational for his opponents to claim that he is not as fully invested in the US as someone who is a citizen of the US and no other country.  It is for the purpose of refuting these doubts that he has made a huge show of renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

However, the Canadians almost certainly won't confirm that he has renounced Canadian citizenship, for most of the same reasons the Hawaii vital-statistics unit would not release Obama's full birth certificate.  Therefore, we can expect people to be hounding Cruz to supply documentary proof that he has actually done what the law in Canada requires to renounce citizenship in that country.  It is tempting to say that sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, but birtherism is tedious--regardless of the target--and very polluting to political discourse.  This is one of several reasons (though not the principal one) I hope Cruz' candidacy will be very short-lived.

[J N Winkler]

How about John McCain, his birth place is no longer a US territory. It's now a panamanian base.

His parents were both US citizens.  I don't think anyone born in the Panama Canal Zone could claim US citizenship without at least one US citizen parent.  In any case, the real issue with McCain is that he apparently could not produce a birth certificate.  He would have great trouble just registering to vote in a state like Kansas where citizenship proof is now required by law.

[1995hoo]

You need to look at Section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1138—39. Cruz's mother was (is? I don't know whether she's alive today) a US citizen who had resided in the US for ten years before he was born, and at least five of those years came after she turned 16.

[bandit957]

The Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born. So I don't think there's any doubt at all McCain was a natural born citizen.

[1995hoo]

The Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born. So I don't think there's any doubt at all McCain was a natural born citizen.

Section 203 of the statute I cited earlier addresses the Canal Zone. Both of his parents were US citizens. The statute states he is therefore a natural-born citizen.

BTW, the Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory. Without the statute, under Supreme Court precedent McCain would have been a US national, not a US citizen.

[oscar]

You need to look at Section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1138—39.

"Birthers" will tell you that a crummy statute isn't enough. I think it is, but then I'm a real dove on "natural born citizen" (basically, that clause is there to prevent a foreign power from foisting a ruler on us, like later happened with Mexico's Emperor Maximilian until his ouster and execution).

He would have great trouble just registering to vote in a state like Kansas where citizenship proof is now required by law.

His U.S. passport (either personal, or official through holding U.S. government office) presumably would do for that purpose, as would naturalization papers if he had to get citizenship that way. For some people, a passport or naturalization certificate is their *only* proof of U.S. citizenship.

[J N Winkler]

Section 203 of the statute I cited earlier addresses the Canal Zone. Both of his parents were US citizens. The statute states he is therefore a citizen.

Now codified at 8 USC § 1403.  I think the main difference between this and the other section, now codified at 8 USC § 1401, is to supply a carve-out from the requirements for prior US residency that would otherwise apply.

[Pete from Boston]

Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.

[oscar]

Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.

The Constitution has a grandfather clause, which exempted them (as "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") from the "natural born citizen" requirement.

[J N Winkler]

His U.S. passport (either personal, or official through holding U.S. government office) presumably would do for that purpose, as would naturalization papers if he had to get citizenship that way. For some people, a passport or naturalization certificate is their *only* proof of U.S. citizenship.

He would have to use a passport to get around the lack of a birth certificate.

There was a well-publicized case a few months ago involving a woman born at home in Minnesota whose birth was not officially recorded.  She was clearly a US citizen, and had been registered to vote in Missouri nearly all of her adult life, but when she moved to Kansas, she was not able to register to vote because she did not have a birth certificate.  In the end the State Objections Board (which in Kansas has the responsibility of handling "hard luck" cases such as this and has become notorious as a forum for birtherism) accepted the family Bible, in which her birth had been recorded, as proof of citizenship, and only on the basis that this would be used to grant her a US passport if she had applied for one.  It was widely joked that she had had to promise to vote Republican for the rest of her life (all three members of the Board are Republican officeholders).

One reason I hate birtherism in general is that if you set out to find defects in the documentation chain that supports a claim to US citizenship, you will assuredly find them, even if they are completely trivial, and they can in turn be used to attack the validity of the citizenship claim.  If my grandmother had run for President today, I am sure a big stink would have been made of the fact that her birth certificate said February 28, 1919 when the actual date of birth was February 27, 1919.  Obama had much cleaner birth documentation than she did, and look what happened when he tried to shut down the birthers for good by releasing his long-form birth certificate.

The sections 1995hoo has quoted afford endless fodder for birtherism in the case of people born abroad, because of the requirement for the US citizen parent to have been actually resident in the US during certain timeframes.  The original purpose of these was to prevent indefinite expatriatism (i.e., being a US citizen on the basis that a fourth grandfather or some other remote ancestor was a US citizen, none of the intervening ancestors having actually even seen the US), but they can now be used as vehicles for attacking a foreign-born child's claim to US citizenship, because the standard of proof for residency is ambiguous and people tend to live their lives without thinking about how to prove they are residents of such and such a political entity.

[Pete from Boston]

Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.

The Constitution has a grandfather clause, which exempted them from the "natural born citizen" requirement.

I said you could argue, not that you'd be right.

[J N Winkler]

Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.

Just to add to Oscar's comment:  the clause dealing with people actually resident in the US at the founding of the country would have allowed Alexander Hamilton to run for President despite his being born in the Virgin Islands, contrary to what thousands of high-school US History teachers tell their pupils each year.  (His electability was of course a different issue altogether.)

[1995hoo]

Eight of the first nine presidents were born British. If you feel persnicketty, you can argue that Van Buren was our first legitimate president.

Nice try, but the Constitution gets around that by providing that a person who was a US citizen at the time of the Constitution's adoption was eligible. 

You need to look at Section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, 1138—39.

"Birthers" will tell you that a crummy statute isn't enough. I think it is, but then I'm a real dove on "natural born citizen" (basically, that clause is there to prevent a foreign power from foisting a ruler on us, like later happened with Mexico's Emperor Maximilian until his ouster and execution).

....

Just as well they have no say in the matter. The Constitution doesn't define the expression. One could look to the common law instead of to statutes, but it doesn't matter because the courts would almost invariably consider it a "political question" (meaning they won't decide it)–if they get that far at all, because they'd almost certainly dismiss it on standing grounds. There was a federal district court case in 2010 in the District of Columbia where a woman sought a writ of quo warranto disqualifying Obama. The court dismissed the case on standing grounds; one amusing aspect of the holding noted that the petitioner had to be qualified to be elected president to have standing to seek that particular writ, and in that particular case it was undisputed that the petitioner was a naturalized citizen herself!

[bandit957]

I remember about 20 years ago, I started hearing a lot about U.S. families going to maternity wards right across the border in Canada or Mexico for their children to be born, because the U.S. health care system was so bad. I had wondered how it would affect the child's citizenship. If both parents were citizens, I guess it wouldn't be a problem, but what if both parents weren't citizens? In that case, I assume the child wouldn't be a citizen, even if they actually resided in the U.S. from the time of birth.

[hbelkins]

Saw somewhere upthread that someone said that because Cruz' mother was a citizen, he'd be a citizen even if he was born outside the United States. The same would be applicable, from what I've read, if his father was a citizen and his mother was not. I know some religions base the child's status on the mother's status, but I understand that to not be the case where citizenship is concerned.

I hope it is settled that he is eligible to run. He's certainly my choice among all the candidates, announced or not.

[bing101]

Ted Cruz will be bashed on the party primary level over his Birth Certificate.

[briantroutman]

Isn't this nearly the same situation that George Romney faced in 1968 (albeit with two native US-born parents vs. one)? I think the commonly held position is that he would have been eligible.

[bing101]

Guys once 2016 is at play Ted Cruz will be bashed on other hypocrisy charges by his opponents once the debates come into play. It's not just the birth certificate issue where one hypocrisy charge came out.